Moral to learn as developers: Follow PR rules even if you are owner or admin, senior executive dev or junior dev.
I'm sorry
261–270 of 277 posts
Re: I'm sorry
#262Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't this situation a counterexample though? Nontechnical ways to prevent behaviour were attempted, and failed. For distributed software development processes, the only thing that works are hard boundaries. No hard boundary -> implicitly tolerated. For instance, "the vast majority of behaviour" includes every line of code in a repo. The only viable way of preventing undesirable behaviour of a software system is to e…
> Isn't this situation a counterexample though? Nontechnical ways to prevent behaviour were attempted, and failed. Not really. Just like shoplifting isn't a motivator for putting everything behind the counter in a store. The cure could be worse than the disease. > For distributed software development processes, the only thing that works are hard boundaries. Definitely not true. Opensource has existed for a really lon…
We're going to have to agree to disagree, if you are arguing against mandatory code reviews in software projects.
Beyond the obvious sanity checks, they exist for establishing collective consent, and knowledge sharing - these are responsibilities that increase with seniority, not decrease.
Junior people should never be permitted to sidestep the process, and senior people must be leaders and set an example.
But it's a big world, so do your thing.
Re: I'm sorry
#263Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hanlon's Razor is just a heuristic. What is the reasoning for following it? Or do we just blindly follow an age-old adage because it sounds philosophical?
For my part, I'm going off of my life experiences. In the vast majority of cases, the logic behind Hanlon's Razor held. Many times I assumed malicious intent and was proved wrong. As I've gotten older, I've assumed malicious intent less frequently.
I would assume that you fell on the "assume malicious intent too much" side of what's probably a normal distribution, while some other people are on the other side. If that theory is correct, people like you would benefit from Hanlon's razor, but other people would not, they should do the opposite.
I think "people that don't assume enough malicious intent" are a real thing, so I think Hanlon's razor is not an universally good recommandation.
Re: I'm sorry
#264Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assume they want to retain "ownership" so they can execute the extend and extinguish steps unopposed
You do realise they created .NET?
Okay, _they_ also need to build good will with developers if they want developers to use their products and services.
Re: I'm sorry
#265It's a Microsoft project, and Microsoft employees can and will do what they want.
Re: I'm sorry
#266Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Isn't this situation a counterexample though? Nontechnical ways to prevent behaviour were attempted, and failed. Not really. Just like shoplifting isn't a motivator for putting everything behind the counter in a store. The cure could be worse than the disease. > For distributed software development processes, the only thing that works are hard boundaries. Definitely not true. Opensource has existed for a really lon…
We're going to have to agree to disagree, if you are arguing against mandatory code reviews in software projects. Beyond the obvious sanity checks, they exist for establishing collective consent, and knowledge sharing - these are responsibilities that increase with seniority, not decrease. Junior people should never be permitted to sidestep the process, and senior people must be leaders and set an example. But it's a…
No, I think as soon as a project has two people who care about it and will reliably review, it should be turned on as mandatory.
But there will always be a way for one of these two to go around the process, if they really want to. Otherwise you have to plan for what happens if anybody becomes unavailable.
But it's clearly not "the only thing that works". E.g. AFAIK OpenBSD still just gives core team the commit bit, and don't work on a "prevent" basis for enforcement.
And if not OpenBSD anymore, then this has at least been the default model of CVS for over 30 years. It clearly does, in fact, work just fine.
Now, enforced code review is better.
So I agree with all you said in this comment. But it's not as simple as what you said before.
But short of SOX-compliant stuff and very strict environments, there will always be people with "god" powers. As I understand it the PR author here could have turned off code review, merged, and turned it back on. And with the attitude she showed in the comment saying "yeah thanks this is my project so I do what I want", clearly "doing the right thing" was not on the radar. It didn't serve to remind her, because she knew. She acted as if "above the law" deliberately.
So in almost all cases yes. In this case no.
Re: I'm sorry
#267It seems to me that there is a valid apology present in two paragraphs: > [...] I made a mistake this last week when I made a PR and merged it to a project without discussion. [...] I overstepped. I failed to consider how the interaction would look through the lens of my current role. [...] this was a mistake. I sincerely apologize. > To recap, I’m sorry about the PR I made and merged on the ReactiveUI Splat repo. Th…
But she doesn't even explain what the "mistake" was (moving OSS projects), and even down plays it by only mentioning merging a PR and not the intent behind the PR.
She also doesn't say why she thought this change was needed, or why on earth she would even think to do such a thing without talking with the maintainers.
These reads as a weak, non-apology to me - makes me wonder if the text was really written by her, or by legal.
For context, I've been working in Microsoft shops and with dotnet for 2 decades, and I'm pretty much a dotnet fanboi - the actions here have burned a tonne of goodwill, both with dotnet developers and those others who are/were tempted by it. I'm not angry, I'm disappointed :(
Re: I'm sorry
#268Total waste of everyone's time. I suspect if the word "Microsoft" were not in this equation, this HN thread would not exist and no one would give a shit. A lot of people have ulterior motives and 99% of the "toxicity" I have observed to date comes from either trying to hide those motives or pretending like others couldn't possibly possess them.
Yup, I'm inclined to agree. I also think the word 'toxic' is horribly overused, to mean essentially 'anything I don't like'.
Though FWIW, ulterior motives are hidden by definition – as in, that's literally the meaning of the word 'ulterior' – so I'm not quite sure what the last sentence is getting at.
Re: I'm sorry
#269I’m not sure that thread supports your point, tbh.
Re: I'm sorry
#270I am not versed in all the details here, but it is clear there is a diverge of expectations between MS and some of the repo owners. This is just part of business. Legal agreements and projects are complicated. Not everything is going to be spelled out. In a good business relationship you acknowledge this and work in good faith to resolve differences when they occur. However, top comments make clear there is a dire ne…
Excuse me? The post is a non-apology. It starts with a minor PR while in fact it turns out to be about the whole organizational structure which was a surprise to people that joined it?! This is a fundamental problem, not a minor PR and how the process for merging that is. As for emotions and business you are also quite wrong. Emotions will give you some pretty good hints about reality. Ignoring those and trying to be…
Wanted to support your point on emotions with a quote from my favourite philosopher, David Hume:
"We speak not strictly and philosophically when we talk of the combat of passion and of reason. Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."[0]
[0] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page%3ATreatise_of_Human_Natu...