Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process
Bret Barkelew <bret.barkelew@...>
From: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com> on behalf of Nate DeSimone via groups.io <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 2:35:37 PM
To: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>; email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Bret Barkelew <Bret.Barkelew@microsoft.com>; email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>; email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Kinney, Michael D <email@example.com>; Leif Lindholm (Nuvia address) <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Andrew Fish <email@example.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process
I think both myself and Bret may have gotten a little chippy. I think both of us are passionate about our work and that shows in the debate. I am happy to forgive Bret and hopefully he is with me as well.
On 5/19/20, 2:22 PM, "firstname.lastname@example.org on behalf of Laszlo Ersek" <email@example.com on behalf of firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
On 05/19/20 21:34, Bret Barkelew wrote:
> Nate, I believe you missed Seanâ€™s point.
> Each one of those packages should have been a separate PR.
And then we get to wrangle inter-PR dependencies.
Even if github.com supports that, it's a heavy-weight tool, and should
be used sparingly. Patches in a patch series are almost always
inter-dependent in some way, which indicates that many normal patch sets
would have to be split into multiple PRs.
> Ergo, no information would have been lost in the squash.
> Also, itâ€™s not so much that we *canâ€™t* learn. Itâ€™s that we choose not to. Around here, itâ€™s a mark of prestige to not open doors with your face if it seems like thereâ€™s a better way. Makes it easier to focus on the work.
Wrt. "open doors with your face", which I understand to be a retort to
Nate associating prestige with conforming to the current workflow:
I think the expression breaks the Code of Conduct:
"Do not insult or put down other participants"
(... Before anyone suggests that I did the same when I called
maintainers & people en bloc "irrepairably lazy and undisciplined" in my
previous mail: that's a fact about humans.
People on average perform the minimum of work they can get away with,
for satisfying requirements and for reaching goals. It's natural. That's
why we have to set high standards. So that covers "lazy".
And "undisciplined" (= ignoring rules and good practices) is evidenced
frequently, with fixed BZs left open, posted patches not referenced in
the BZs they address, BZs ignored / left un-triaged for months and
years, pending patches ignored for weeks, reviewed patches left unmerged
for days or weeks, etc. I'm not throwing around accusations, just
showing that my statement was factual, hardly an insult. OTOH "open
doors with your face" is figurative speech, and I do consider it an insult.)