On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Tim Starling <tstarling(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
On 17/01/13 00:14, Chad wrote:
Really, I think the whole thread is moot with the
pending upgrade.
Typos should always be fixed before merging (I think we all agree?),
and the new abilities to fix these from the UI means we won't need
to mark people as -1 to do so.
I didn't mention commit summaries in my post. My interest is in
nitpicking in general. Jeroen calls arguments over commit summaries
the /ultimate/ bikeshed, which they may or may not be; there are
plenty of other examples which may compete for that title.
Indeed, I had missed that.
Nitpicking is the minor end of the negative feedback
spectrum. By
definition, it has the smallest concrete payoff when advice is
followed, in exchange for complex, context-dependent social costs. You
should think carefully before you do it.
*nod* I agree. And really, nitpicks in code can always be cleaned
up later (heck, we did it for years with SVN).
It's only nitpicks in commit messages that should always be fixed,
since they're immutable after submission. And it's *that* that I think
won't be a big deal anymore (since any drive-by contributor could
fix a typo on the spot).
-Chad