From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21761 invoked by alias); 7 Dec 2002 23:41:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 21754 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2002 23:41:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fencepost.gnu.org) (199.232.76.164) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 7 Dec 2002 23:41:57 -0000 Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 18Koa5-0008GE-00 for gcc@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Dec 2002 18:41:57 -0500 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 18Koa0-0007F7-00 for gcc@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Dec 2002 18:41:54 -0500 Received: from emf.emf.net ([205.149.0.20] helo=emf.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 18KoYe-0006ii-00 for gcc@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Dec 2002 18:40:28 -0500 Received: (from lord@localhost) by emf.net (K/K) id PAA04425; Sat, 7 Dec 2002 15:40:25 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 17:18:00 -0000 From: Tom Lord Message-Id: <200212072340.PAA04425@emf.net> To: phil@jaj.com CC: per@bothner.com, gcc@gnu.org In-reply-to: <20021207174847.A21533@disaster.jaj.com> (message from Phil Edwards on Sat, 7 Dec 2002 17:48:47 -0500) Subject: on reputation and lines and putting things places (Re: gcc branches?) References: <3DEBFF1F.8070603@bothner.com> <87y97752yp.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> <3DEC018B.4090905@bothner.com> <87vg2b51my.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> <200212030203.SAA27437@emf.net> <3DF116A7.3040308@bothner.com> <200212070708.XAA02044@emf.net> <20021207174847.A21533@disaster.jaj.com> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.6 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_05_08 version=2.41 X-Spam-Level: X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00407.txt.bz2 > Ask some serious questions or read the `arch' source code. > I'll be happy to help with your evaluation because I am > confident that if you are not foolish about it, I'll "win". This is why I distrust arch; I distrust the mentality of the authors behind it. Anyone who says, "certainly, let's discuss it, and if you aren't stupid, you'll agree with me," is too arrogant to be bothered to work with. Wow. That's not what I'm saying. My bad for casually using the word "foolish" on a mailing list, I suppose. I'm saying: I already know that you (SC members) are smart. I already know that arch is good and the project is very useful to you. What's been consistently lacking for many months now is a serious discussion of the issues and technology domain. There's a communication disconnect, it seems to me. In this particular instance, not repairing that disconnect, will be seen in retrospect as foolish. "foolish" in contexts like this doesn't seem to me to be a personal judgement about people's competence. Instead, it's just me, putting some substantial part of what little good reputation I might have on the line, explicitly. It's me saying: I'm not bullshitting here and I'm not even just speculating -- this is real, and important, and deserves your focused attention. I could equally well have said: I am confident that if you spend a bit of time digging into these issues -- such that I become confident you really are thinking about the design space and it's implications -- that you'll come to agree with me that `arch' is a no-brainer, and highly desirable technology for you. It's a good heuristic for busy project leads to be dismissive by default. My "foolish" comment is just stressing my judgement that this is a case where that default response is inappropriate. Yes, yes, I know you don't have time for 99% of anything off your main track -- I'm insisting that this is in that 1%. Here, I'll use strong language (e.g. "foolish"), to demonstrate my insistence. This is a bit like that guy (was it Larry Wall?) who (carefully, so as not to cause injury) threw and smashed a coffee-cup against a wall during a wet-space meeting -- to signal, unambiguously: "Ok, I'm insisting now." So, again: "foolish" in this context is meant to underscore my confidence -- not to denigrate others. Where I come from, this idiomatic usage is common among engineers and understood positively with a smirk and a "well, ok then". It's an instance of engineering machismo functioning properly. Sadly, it has been my experience that this elegant use of conversational valence is easily confused with random email-based flamage. So, you're qualified to dispense criticism of /other/ tools, but criticism of /your/ tool is "bullshit rumor". Yes. Some criticisms (not the ones offered here) of `arch' are not bullshit. But neither are they fatal: rather, they are part of why arch needs just a bit of commercial investment to finish the job. I have a number of such criticisms myself. This is part of the transition from strategic R&D to tactical execution. Yes, I am quite well qualified to say a thing or two about the approach being taken by svn. Under some circumstances, it is my social duty to speak up. I'm pleased with the leadership provided by the SC; they take a light touch in a community of volunteers. If I came home from work, sat down to do some volunteer hacking, and was ordered by an arrogant, heavy-handed, "you must focus on project now or else" SC, I would cordially invite them to perform a certain anitomical impossibility, and take my resources elsewhere. Well, of course! I'm not asking the SC to change their relation to you, an individual. I am asking them to first, start to understand `arch' and the related projects I've been advocating and how those things relate to the project; second, we can start to figure out together how to relate this to the volunteer _corporations_. If all goes well, it will become easier for you, as an individual, to contribute as you like. Your time is valuable. `arch' can make your life more fun, and your contributions more effective. I'm still trying to figure out what exactly -- concrete suggestions, now -- what exactly you want us to do, given the constraints of a) no extra time, and b) no money. This list is advertised as the best way to communicate with the SC. The SC is the best way to communicate with the corporations. "It was uphill both ways. And we liked it that way.", -t