Re: [PATCH 0/4] remote-hg: more improvements

From: Philippe Vaucher <philippe.vaucher@gmail.com>
Date: May 14, 2014, 09:36 UTC
Message-ID: <CAGK7Mr5ezbTVyq2wr7kYWjab6V1srrYwkqSGjo1GuPnkSuGWTQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <87mweku2pt.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org>

Show 10 quoted lines

>> Thanks for the explanation. I think it underlines well the A)
>> technical issues (quality commits) and the B) social issues (ability
>> to communicate in a friendly way & respond constructively), which we
>> discovered are both *essential* for contributing to git.
>
> I'm not entirely convinced of that: there is something akin to drop-dead
> gorgeous code: code that is so well done that it would not matter with
> regard to its maintenance whether or not its author dropped dead because
> it's both done well as well as documented in a manner where the original
> author could not offer significant additional help.

I think this only means that you can get away with B issues if A's quality is very very very high, which doens't happen very often. And I doubt that you will be able to get away with it for long anyway, at some point some mechanism will be put in place so the downsides of B aren't visible to everyone... for example with the patches being sent to one person only and this person relays it to the list while filtering B's issues.

Philippe