Hello!
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?
Compromise:
http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/phase3/
includes/DifferenceEngine.php?r1=25409&r2=25525
Revert:
http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki?
view=rev&revision=25527
And you were not on channel for quite a while. :)
I am a volunteer developer.
We're closer than you'd think - I'm too.
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.
So why do you intervene with "I don't like it either" without any
arguments into discussion about code that was reviewed properly and
was ready to go live? Its not your job either.
I contributed, and still contribute, to MediaWiki,
because I want
to, and because I could and
have benefit(ed) the project.
Same here :)
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.
Oh, you just hate criticism far more :)
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.
Oh come on, I'm a volunteer too, and I also have my right to be
pissed, when someone comes up with "this sucks" attitude without even
trying to understand who did that and why.
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.
And we're changing that. Though every change has to be thought off.
We can't index every field, because indexes have to be maintained.
There always has to be compromise between absolutely amazing
fantastic feature set and something we can run.
There is nothing wrong with adding new features, yet
you seem to
thoroughly hate the idea of
some rather necessary schema changes.
Which necessary schema change did I ever oppose? It is not me doing
schema changes usually anyway :-)
I'm quite ready to extend the data environment in any needed
direction - that is what we do.
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.
I have opinion of Tim, that he's the best at looking for (and
finding) compromises.
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.
Actually, some of quick live hacks we did, evolved into standard
practices (shame oh shame, we should've went the elegant industry
path with big iron).
Because they were simply "good enough" for the job.
That "good enough" seems to be core for the kind of operation we're
having.
Of course, thats already engineering - not development :)
BR,
--
Domas Mituzas --
http://dammit.lt/ -- [[user:midom]]