httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ralf S. Engelschall" <>
Subject Re: Back to the roots
Date Tue, 27 Apr 1999 10:35:01 GMT

In article <> you wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:

> Sigh; this is why god invented mkdir(1).  Problem solved.

When you put the stuff into a subdir, its no longer visible to "ls", sure. But
the source tree itself doesn't shrink this way, of course.

>> Sure, I guess you've no problem with the right side. That's fine. But I
>> personally have great problems with such source trees because it strikes my
>> optical aesthetics. That's why shtool is a single script - to let me avoid
>> such source trees. But because when someone hasn't problems with it, all I can
>> say is that then he just shouldn't use shtool. That's all. 
> Does trying to keep straight the organization of shell code in a 50K file
> strike your "optical aesthetics", too?  It sure does mine...

Yes, Ben even calls this spaghetti code. But the resulting shtool isn't really
meant to be changed. It's compiled out of the ingredients as an executable is
compiled of smaller objects.

>> BTW, I find it rather silly that every time I contribute something to the
>> community I first have to explain my intentions in depth and get blamed for my
>> approaches when I make a suggestion. 
> If you think this is bad, you should work on commercial software
> development projects.  At least our debate is out in the open, where
> clearly incorrect statements can be corrected.  

Ok, it's fine when others like such open and hot discussions. I dislike it
because experience shows that at the end no one has really changed his mind.
For instance first Jim blamed about the license and I had to clarify why
shtool doesn't violate anything here (this whole discussion could have been
avoided).  Then the next guy blamed that it's useless to have a 50KB single
shell script but didn't give reasonable reasons why. And I had to express the
intentions behind shtool again. Ok, one can do this in long discussions and it's
always done this way here.  

But nevertheless I personally would appreciate a different and more
constructive way of discussions: Before someone complains or asks questions he
first looks _carefully_ at the code, reads the corresponding documentation and
_tries_ to understand the intentions of the new stuff or suggestion.  Then
_remaining_ questions can be discussed.  But it works always differently here:
When one contributes something and suggests something the complains usually
_immediately_ start. That costs too much nerves and time and this time could
be spent on more constructive things. Sorry when this is only my opinion and
no one wants to share this...

> You have the
> double-penalty in private debates of different aesthetics *and* different
> skill levels of developers and managers.  Whee!  
> I think everyone appreciates your work, Ralf, but just keep in mind that
> code doesn't make right; just because you've implemented things a certain
> way, and it works, doesn't mean everyone agrees that's the right way to do
> it.  I think also you tend to "surprise" us with code before asking for
> our input or ideas on design, and then ask us to swallow a couple hundred
> K worth of patches in one go.  That's clearly not as effective as getting
> us to buy-in on the ideas and approaches first, and the code (bit by bit)
> second.  When possible, of course.

Hmmm... ok, it maybe my failure that I'm faster in implementing solutions than
others want to think about them. You're right that it maybe better to first
discuss anything. I usually avoid this for stand-alone solutions (especially
for shtool which is not tight to Apache, so why should I've discussed it
inside the AG? All I wanted is to suggest the use of it for forthcoming
versions). Because I have to implement something immediately at the time my
motivation exists (else I'll never implement it as experience showed). Then I
don't want to spend days on discussions. 

My main failure seems to be just that I assume that the presented solution is
commented with _short_ and _constructive_ comments like "Fine, we like it
because of X, Y, Z" or "Bad, we don't like X, Y, Z but it could be made better
by doing it this and that way".  But it looks like this wish is not a
reasonable one... At least until now no one has given a really constructive
statement for shtool. No one said what should be made different _and_ actually
why. People until now mainly said that they dislike something...

                                       Ralf S. Engelschall

View raw message