On Aug 7, 2014, at 10:42 AM, Daniel Sank <sank.daniel@gmail.com> wrote:


I really wish we would stop calling things "bad" and "good".

My wording of exarkun's wording. He gave a much more detailed description of what he think's is "crazy" about pb.

This was a complaint about a general trend, not about specific words.  Clearly exarkun gave you the impression that it is "bad", whether he specifically said so or not.

We're all intimately familiar with everything that's terrible about all of our code, and we aren't shy about sharing.  I just would like it if we could really lead with the details and refrain from value judgements :).

make your own decisions about how to write your own code.

Indeed, but gathering information from wiser folks is always a good idea, and usually best done _often_ during development :)

I might quibble with "wiser" but okay.  I'm happy to provide feedback earlier so I don't have to say "what is this disaster" later ;-).

I'm happy to trade 2-for-1 - if you do two code reviews, I will regard it as an immediate obligation for
> me to review a ticket you direct me to ;).

Deal. However, rather than direct your attention to tickets, at this stage I would rather trade reviews for discussion. I'll do two reviews and then post a few questions to this mailing list thread. Once I start actually writing patches/new code we can trade reviews for attention to tickets. Ok?

I'm happy to do that.

These would also be easier to land, and a couple of decades in open source has taught me that nothing
> motivates development activity like successful development activity ;).

Indeed. There are one or two architectural issues I want to understand before moving on to real coding. I will try to get through that asap by reviewing tickets and trading for discussion of those architectural issues.

I'll try to respond to these questions regardless.  I would like to help.  It's just that the reviews will create a more tangible sense of commitment :).

> Hopefully you can make sense out of the explanations above and your own existing knowledge.
> Are there any other phases of the process which are confusing?

This all makes sense now. I hadn't understood the point of the cooker, but now that you've explained it, I understand what's going on. I will transform your mailing list explanation to documentation shortly.

Great, glad that helped.