i kind of agree with much of this stuff, but: * i saw in one project shitting only on commits of a certain person, only on a technical basis, even if other com

i kind of agree with much of this stuff, but: * i saw in one project shitting only on commits of a certain person, only on a technical basis, even if other commits were worse. i know this because of a real crappy testcommit i did. i did not get the shit the other person got. * i still think, some swearings even for code are over the line, like linus torvalds retroactive abort of code, for example. We code and build things. many people poor their soul into this. and then other people come around and shit on it. * people who shit are often very agressive and competent people. so less competent people may on the receiving end quite a bit, for example the guys who built the ubuntu base in that example. is their work doomed or shit? does this mean that they did not work well? are they bad workers or do generate bad results? should they be fired because their workresults do not perform well? can that be a general rule? and this line is not cut through by on-subject-shitters because "be an adult". and this in turn might create toxic culture. just as well as the toxic positivity which only comes more often because it's better understandable by non-it-guys from HR. but i admit, at least it's another approach. we need more approaches and studies about them.