Re: [PATCH v4 00/13] New remote-hg helper

From: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>
Date: Oct 31, 2012, 15:55 UTC
Message-ID: <509149D9.3070606@drmicha.warpmail.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s2a7fmxFmdn0CAcVtX8NxVtPdBKH9RY+i_Og53jb1Ju5Q@mail.gmail.com>

Felipe Contreras venit, vidit, dixit 31.10.2012 16:39:

> This is precisely ad hominem; you are ignoring the code, not because
> of the code, because of the person. This is as ad hominem as it gets.

I am not rejecting your code (I reviewed an early series) but reject the communication style and manners displayed in this thread.

Show 6 quoted lines

> As for how "professional or helpful" that is, it's debatable. The
> Linux kernel mailing list is known for being harsh, and yet, they
> manage to get more things done than any other. They truly look at the
> code, just the code, they don't consider criticism to the code
> personally (nobody should), nor linger on any personal beefs that only
> distract from the end goal.

There are people who choose not to be on that list because of its style. For this list, I think we should follow this list's style, not that one.

> But enough about Johannes, if I go on to Max's branch and give a try
> to the code, make a list of issues, run my extensive tests and so on,
> and make a report of the status, and a comparison with my code. Would
> that make it more likely for you to stop being a by-stander?

Sure, that's what I and others have asked for.

> Didn't think so. The truth of the matter is that it doesn't matter
> what I do code-wise.

Just try, seriously.

Show 8 quoted lines

>> Orthogonal to this, it seems that all hg-git interfaces could take
>> advantage of a "git heads" feature if we resurrect the old ideas (can't
>> find the thread right now).
> 
> Never heard of that.
> 
> You accused me of ad hominem, now I ask you; can you ignore any
> personal biases and look at the code, and only at the code?

My efforts here prove that I either have no biases or ignore them. I'm not going to ignore the style of communication, though. As a patch submitter, you ("generic you") want the attention of others as reviewers. It's in your own (again "generic you") interest not to put them off, in the same way as it's up to the submitter to argue why a patch is desirable and correct.

Michael