3 ms·

Probably useful to link https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-ports/pull/189/files https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-ports/pull/189/files for some context. Looks

by marwis 3y ago

Probably useful to link https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-ports/pull/189/files https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-ports/pull/189/files for some context. Looks like author overdramatizes the situation a bit.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
barkingcat 3y ago
Reads like an inability to follow directions and to communicate clearly.
- rodlette 3y ago
  Agreed. I don't think the PR reviewer is calling the author a liar. The reviewer said FreeBSD is not willing to lie to its users about version, and instead provided useful info, pointing out the relevant example. Still, there's a lesson for reviewers that tone is important, especially over text and where a power differential exists. Also, the author notes: > The very first comment in the thread from a reviewer was simply only one word: “Why?” - That’s it, just one word. Why did I do this? Why work with such old hardware? Why is the sky blue? How the hell am I to know the context of what they’re referring to when asking a one-worded question? Its clear from https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-ports/pull/189#discussion_r1306684978 https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-ports/pull/189#discussion... that the author is asking why is this line needed, something a PR author should always be able to justify.
  - winternewt 3y ago
    And the PR author clearly doesn't even know why (he even begins the answer with "¯_(ツ)_/¯"). His only explanation is that it's there because it was in the code that he copied. So essentially he has submitted code that he doesn't understand and is angered when people ask him to explain it. It's their job to ensure that the code is there for a good reason. That is how the quality is upheld.
winternewt 3y ago
Yeah the part when he goes "I don't appreciate being called a liar" makes him seem emotionally immature. It's obviously not at all what the reviewer was trying to say, and they even took a step back to explain what they meant. To still bring this up in the open letter is dishonest in my book. Makes you wonder if the author was similarly misinterpreting things in all the other interactions he's talking about.

by marwis 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

barkingcat 3y ago

Reads like an inability to follow directions and to communicate clearly.

rodlette 3y ago
Agreed. I don't think the PR reviewer is calling the author a liar. The reviewer said FreeBSD is not willing to lie to its users about version, and instead provided useful info, pointing out the relevant example. Still, there's a lesson for reviewers that tone is important, especially over text and where a power differential exists. Also, the author notes: > The very first comment in the thread from a reviewer was simply only one word: “Why?” - That’s it, just one word. Why did I do this? Why work with such old hardware? Why is the sky blue? How the hell am I to know the context of what they’re referring to when asking a one-worded question? Its clear from https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-ports/pull/189#discussion_r1306684978 https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-ports/pull/189#discussion... that the author is asking why is this line needed, something a PR author should always be able to justify.
- winternewt 3y ago
  And the PR author clearly doesn't even know why (he even begins the answer with "¯_(ツ)_/¯"). His only explanation is that it's there because it was in the code that he copied. So essentially he has submitted code that he doesn't understand and is angered when people ask him to explain it. It's their job to ensure that the code is there for a good reason. That is how the quality is upheld.

winternewt 3y ago

Yeah the part when he goes "I don't appreciate being called a liar" makes him seem emotionally immature. It's obviously not at all what the reviewer was trying to say, and they even took a step back to explain what they meant. To still bring this up in the open letter is dishonest in my book. Makes you wonder if the author was similarly misinterpreting things in all the other interactions he's talking about.