[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: release goals for Bazaar 1.1

From: Stephen J. Turnbull
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: release goals for Bazaar 1.1
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 19:30:08 +0900
User-agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.5 (chayote, linux)

>>>>> "Adrian" == Adrian Irving-Beer <address@hidden> writes:

    Adrian> Heh, agreed.  It skips one step ahead in one possible
    Adrian> chain of action, i.e. bug found -> annotate -> fix it ->
    Adrian> blame someone (sometimes with the latter two reversed).
    Adrian> Frankly, that course of action suggests a pretty
    Adrian> dysfunctional and unproductive project crew to me.

What should happen is that you turn down the arrogance and politely
ask the person who checked in the change "what were you thinking?  I
don't understand it, and it looks to me like it's this cause of *this*
reported misbehavior."  All too often, people charge ahead and check
in a fix that fails in a different and even more obscure way, often
without cc'ing the person who wrote the original code.

    Adrian> Subversion probably meant it to be cute.  I find it
    Adrian> annoyingly cheeky.

That may be.  "Annotate" doesn't say at all what the command does,
though, except in a very generic way.  I'm probably just mentally
blocked, but at the moment I can't come up with an idiom that has the
same semantics as "blame" without the connotations: "finger",
"arrest", "accuse", ... ah, got it: "credit", or "colophon" ;-).

Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]