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

Re: wiki.d.o: SummerOfCode2009/KDE-based-packagemanager (bis)

On 2010-07-29 03:11, Martin Ågren wrote:

I know I shouldn't get involved here, but as an outsider (until now),
I thnk I have some neutral insight to provide.

Filipus and Frank seem to agree that the interesting question is "who
made the first bad edit". Once that is established, everything after
that is either "reverting to last good state" or "wrongfully reverting
the good revert". Ok, so where is the first bad edit? You have
different opinions on this:

On 29 July 2010 06:14, Filipus Klutiero<chealer@gmail.com>  wrote:

On 2010-07-28 19:04, Frank Lin PIAT wrote:

Filipus Klutiero wrote:

[...]

Let me summarize:
* in revision 9, you make a single _large_ rewrite of the page
   =>    this is ok, but you should have split your edit, starting
   by easy, non-controversial changes. (so other can understand
   what you do, why you it, and comment ont it).
* in revision 10, another editor is not happy with your change.

[...]

This is incorrect. Here is a proper summary of the problematic edits on that
page:

* in revision 9, Filipus makes several minor modifications to the page
  =>    this is ok

First: "several", I can agree with, but "minor" is simply not true.
Just out of curiosity, what would you think is an example of "several
major modifications" to a page of this size?
I agree that this page is quite small, so, in one way, any non-trivial change could be considered, relatively, a non-minor change. So, to clear any ambiguity, what I meant to say about the modifications is that they are, in the absolute, minor. An example of a modification I would consider absolutely major, would be the addition or removal of a section. Specifically, in this page, adding a main path or removing one. 
Second: Even if the changes were "several minor", that would not
necessarily be ok. If the same changes could be split into several
(even more minor) distinct commits with proper explanations, they
should.
I disagree. Most edits, including those on this page, include several changes, yet nobody is arguing most edits are wrong. 
I fail to see why you couldn't go this route. It would take a
slightly larger effort to begin with, but in a longer perspective, it
would definitely have saved you quite some effort.
This is speculation, we don't have any clue what could have motivated the first reversion at this point. Let's come back to this later, if we ever get a justification.
Reply to: