On 12/09/2007, Domas Mituzas <midom.lists(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Well, no wonder. You're after elegant solutions
and procedures: "The
schema change requirement was noted and made quite clear. If it
wasn't taken live before the software was updated, it's no fault of
the development team. "
As you remember, that schema change was not needed at all, and one-
line change fixed the performance completely. It wasn't elegant
(dedicated indexing, tables, columns, etc - wow, how nice), but it
was practical.
And I appreciate practical solutions, cause we have a site to run.
I'm well aware we have a site to run. If I committed code which wasn't
acceptable, then WHY THE FUCK WASN'T IT REVERTED? If I missed out the
"elegant" compromise (a bit of clever condition work), then WHY THE
FUCK DIDN'T YOU TELL ME?
I am a volunteer developer. I have the ability to commit code. I do
not have, and do not want, the ability or power to take that code
live. It's not my responsibility if something hasn't been reviewed
properly and goes live. It's not my job. I contributed, and still
contribute, to MediaWiki, because I want to, and because I could and
have benefit(ed) the project.
In all honesty, I'm no worse than any of the junior committers who
frequently cock up, break things, etc. but because I have been around
for a bit longer, I'm screamed at a bit more when I screw up. Er,
forget that - I get screamed at, and they don't. You've been doing
this a lot longer than I have, and you're a damn sight better at
database management and maintenance than I ever will be, and I defer
to that. I completely resent, however, your attitude when somebody
makes a mistake - you are patronising. You don't have the budget to be
patronising; you can't afford to piss off all your volunteers.
You have got to remember, Domas, that yes, we are running a site - and
yes, it's a big site, and we are on a less-than-shoestring budget -
but if the database schema doesn't support everything we need it to do
"fast enough", then IT HAS GOT TO BE CHANGED. There is nothing wrong
with adding new features, yet you seem to thoroughly hate the idea of
some rather necessary schema changes.
I furthermore resent your snide attitude towards my opinions on
programming. I'm not the world's greatest programmer, and I doubt I'll
ever be that, but I do like a nice, clean elegant solution - yes. Tim
Starling is pretty much the same, actually, and so is Brion Vibber. Do
you know why? Because "elegant" solutions have a habit of working much
faster, and being easier to maintain in the long run than a quick live
hack.
Rob Church