[Python-Dev] How far to go with user-friendliness
tjreedy at udel.edu
Sun Jul 19 20:11:19 CEST 2015
On 7/19/2015 11:52 AM, Ethan Furman wrote:
> On 07/18/2015 05:13 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> However, from the core developer side [...]
> Participants Core Dev? Position on "assret"
> ---------------------- ----------- --------------------
> Dima Tismek no -1
> Xavier Morel no -1
> Florian Bruhin no ?
> Mark Lawrence no ?
> Stephen J. Turnbull no -.5 (?)
> Alexander no -1
> David Mertz no -1
> Ron Adam no ?
> Christie Wilson no +1 (?)
> Ben Finney no -1
> Isaac Schwabacher no -1
> MRAB ?* -0 (?)
> Michael Foord yes +1
> Antoine Pitrou yes +1
> Victor Stinner yes +1 (?)
> Nick Coghlan yes +1
> Paul Moore yes +0
> A.M. Kuchling yes -0
> Robert Collins yes -1
> Brett Canon yes -.5 (?)
> Berker Peksağ yes -.5 (?)
> Steven D'Aprano yes -1
> Barry Warsaw yes -.5 (?)
> Ethan Furman yes -1
Terry Reedy yes -1
> Looks like this thread was pretty evenly split between core devs and
> non-core devs.
> Looks like a definite majority of non-core devs, and at least a slight
> majority of core devs, think "assret" should be removed.
> Apparently you do not speak for all core devs on this issue, so please
> don't pretend that you do.
To be fair, I think Nick was speaking from the viewpoint of a core-dev
who volunteers to review, edit, and commit a patch, and spends at least
an hour doing so. I do not believe he was pretending to speak for us
collectively as post-commit reviewers.
> Oh, and just a small tidbit of info -- it took longer to research and
> write this email than it did to write the patch to remove "assret"
> checking .
> Seems to me a lot of fuss could have been avoided by just acknowledging
> that a mistake may have been made, and asking for patches if anybody
> cared enough about it.
I agree, and considered posting something nearly identical, but I was
not ready to volunteer a patch.
Given that the issue is one of only partial reversion, and that a new
patch would therefore be needed, I also think that some fuss would have
been avoided if one of the initial objectors had done what you did, or
volunteered to write a new patch, or had at least acknowledged that
someone other than Michael could and should write the proposed new patch.
To me, the important issue is this: none of the people listed above are
'stupid', and little of what we say seriously is 'stupid'. Ditto for
similar adjectives. We should therefore give each other the benefit of
the doubt (more than currently) when responding.
Bad: the patch (or in this case, a portion of it) is stupid.
Good (or certainly much better): I do not understand the rationale, or
consider it inadequate. It makes me queasy. It looks like a step
toward uglifying Python.
Bad: the objections to the patch are stupid.
Good (or certainly much better): <I think Nick already tried to fill in
Terry Jan Reedy
More information about the Python-Dev