Re: Full disclosure

> Hi Christian!
> 
> Yes: I agree that the current state of the last submitted patch in that
> discussion is far from optimal.
> After Jeff Kings explanation I had a much better understanding for the
> situation and the reasoning (and his suggestion was definitely better than
> mine).
> 
> I had already prepared a new version which tackled (I think) pretty much all of
> the criticisms. But then the above mentioned message came in and when I read
> this:
> 
>> [...] they are trying to be different for the sake of being different, which
>> is not a good sign.  I'd want our contributors to be original where being
>> original matters more.
> 
> I am reading:
> 
> 1) I am "trying to be different for the sake of being different"
> 2) Contributors like this are not wanted
> 
> So yes, I do understand this as a general statement on me as a contributor
> without any proposal for me at least to explain the situation from my side.
> 
> I teach my colleges not to name variables with how they are initialized, but
> with what information they actually convey and I found the "_NONE" one at least
> misleading in its name.
> 
> So in the initial discussion I was a bit stubborn, because Philip wrote "I
> don't have a strong opinion" and from my perspective the only argument was
> "over there we also do it that way" (which _can_ 100% be a valid reason), but
> Junio C Hamano did not even acknowledge my criticisms of the other the variable
> name. I am totally fine with a decision like this if done consciously, but if I
> don't even get an acknowledgement, let alone an explanation, my demands I place
> on my code quality are that I write the best code I can. And with all the info
> I had (prior to Jeffs message) I did still favour my first suggestion.
> 
> In my eyes it would be helpful to at least tell me what your (in my eyes not
> obvious) preferences are on naming things, because otherwise I will rather
> stick to my standards than blindly follow a single instance of other code where
> I don't even know if that was a concious decision or it just happened by
> accident.
> 
> So no, I don't agree with the assessment of point 1), but I still read the
> message like that. I will accept it and instead use my skills in different
> projects where they are indeed valued.
> 
> Cheers
> Michael