Re: My patches

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Oct 17, 2013, 21:44 UTC
Message-ID: <52605a36eef0f_448145fe7466@nysa.notmuch>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq8uxrzn9h.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 14 quoted lines

> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> Such a review comment and the discussion that follows it after a
> >> patch is posted is an essential part of the collaborative
> >> development process in this community and it has helped the quality
> >> of our end product. We unfortunately saw time and again that the
> >> process rarely works when the discussion involves your patches.
> >
> > No, you did not. What you saw was a person that unlike a trained dog, argued
> > against you. And apparently your definition of a good discussion is one in
> > which the other person just does what you say, and doesn't argue back.
> 
> That is so untrue that it is not even funny.

It is true, and there's penty of evidence that proves it.

Every single time that you get mad at me, it's because I disagree with you.

> Contributors often make sensible counter-arguments and/or explain
> the rationale better than they did in their original messages, and
> then receive a "Thanks for a dose of sanity" (or an equivalent
> phrased in different ways).

Yes, when there's an agreement, so you are basically proving what I said. I disagree with you, you disagree with me, and that means I'm the problem.

In any healthy collaborative project that simply means there was a disagreement, and that's that.

-- 
Felipe Contreras