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

["Frank Lin PIAT" <fpiat@klabs.be>]

Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> On 2010-07-29 03:11, Martin Ã?gren wrote:
>> 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.
   ^^^  ^^^  ^^^  ^^^  ^^^

I am sorry, but I have no time to waste [anymore], trying to discuss
with some one who obiously has aboslutely no intention to listen or
understand what I (and other) say and explain.

Regards,

Franklin