4 ms·
That's the only objective read of this. There were a couple of good reasons to make the change, a couple of bad reasons to, and no reasons not to. The discussio
by Cushman 15y ago
That's the only objective read of this. There were a couple of good reasons to make the change, a couple of bad reasons to, and no reasons not to. The discussion fixated on the bad reasons early on, it became a matter of principle on both sides, and thus the change was not made despite the good reasons.
It's not bikeshedding, but there ought to be a name for that.
- aeturnum 15y agoMy read of the article is that "bikeshedding" generally covers discussions in which the energy expended vastly outweighs the gravity of the topic under discussion. There can be a correct answer to, "what color should we paint the bike shed?" (or, at least, many incorrect answers). The fact that one side might be correct (or more correct) than the other does not justify the effort. The point of the article, as I read it, was that you should consider the energy needed to influence a decision v.s. the impact of that decision.
- Cushman 15y agoI think the point we're making is that most of the people arguing over that PR didn't have a strong opinion about the feature itself, but were irritated by the weirdly philosophical reason for rejecting it. (I don't care what color you paint your bike shed, but if your local government says you can't paint it green because that's surrendering to the plants, I'm likely to have an opinion about that.) Obviously at some point (and the earlier the better) you still need to to throw up your hands and walk away, but I'd say pig wrestling is the better metaphor here.