Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 23:48:56 +1000 From: Stephen McKay <smckay@internode.on.net> To: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) Cc: Stephen McKay <smckay@internode.on.net> Subject: Doing it right (Was: HEADS UP! MAJOR change to FreeBSD/sparc64) Message-ID: <200403151348.i2FDmuew007550@dungeon.home> In-Reply-To: <xzpish6gsvn.fsf@dwp.des.no>14:08:28 %2B0100" References: <p060204f5bc750679b827@[128.113.24.47]> <200403140716.i2E7GDKa007204@dungeon.home> <20040315000944.GA93356@xor.obsecurity.org> <200403150134.i2F1Y5ew004366@dungeon.home> <xzpish6gsvn.fsf@dwp.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday, 15th March 2004, Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?= wrote: >Stephen McKay <smckay@internode.on.net> writes: >> On Monday, 15th March 2004, Kris Kennaway wrote: >> > No-one donated their time to do it that way. >> I don't think that's relevant. The question is whether it's the right way >> to do it or not. If what I've suggested is technically correct (and that's >> what I believe) then that's how it should be done. > >Armchair generals are a dime a dozen. Competent developers aren't >quite as easy to come by. True and true, but that's not the point. While you and Kris were defending your territory with this style of comment, Garance explained his reasoning, and it's technically sound. That wins the argument, as it should. I think it is a legitimate (and helpful) thing for developers to question the technical merits of changes even if they aren't personally contributing much code. It can't simply be the case that whoever has the time to commit the most code changes wins. Changes must be in the long term interests of the project. Hence questioning code changes can be as much a contribution as writing new code if it avoids a future problem. Stephen.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200403151348.i2FDmuew007550>