5 ms·

There's a massive difference in communicated intent between overriding a blocking review and not blocking at all. Not blocking is a signal that you have no obje

There's a massive difference in communicated intent between overriding a blocking review and not blocking at all. Not blocking is a signal that you have no objection to merging the change as is.

1718627440 1y ago
> Not blocking is a signal that you have no objection to merging the change as is. Only when that is you social agreement. To others this has the meaning of "objection, but not rejection".
- BugsJustFindMe 1y ago
  If it makes you feel better, just think of ignoring non-blocking comments as equivalent to reading them and disagreeing.
  - 1718627440 1y ago
    And this is what I think they are for. Just document that disagreement, and you have also countered future questions about this.
    - BugsJustFindMe 1y ago
      "no" If you care about whether your concerns are addressed by further discussion, block. If you don't actually care about whether something happens as indicated by not blocking, it's passive aggressive to expect more work. People forget that you can just as easily block pending responses to comments and then approve after.
      - 1718627440 1y ago
        > If you care about whether your concerns are addressed by further discussion, block. Well yes, but I don't care about them being addressed by discussion, I want them being addressed by your decision. > it's passive aggressive to expect more work. I am not sure what exactly "passive aggressive" is supposed to mean, but you generally get paid so that others can expect more work.
        BugsJustFindMe 1y ago
        > I want them being addressed by your decision Sure, ok, so then they're addressed by the decision to ignore them because you don't care enough about them to make them blocking and there are other things to work on.
        1718627440 1y ago
        If you documented this and provide a valid rationale for ignoring the issue, then the comment did it's job.
        BugsJustFindMe 1y ago
        > If you documented this and provide I think your understanding of "ignore them" is different than mine. When I say ignore them I mean ignore them, not do more labor to document a thought process in response to them which is the opposite of ignoring them.
        1718627440 1y ago
        If you refuse to do something on a problem I raise, one of us should be fired. Either you, because you refuse to work for what you get money, or me because I hand out advice on random stuff I am not supposed to do. If you did ask me for my opinion, but ignore them, that's a refusal to work on your side. If you didn't asked me and I still started to mess with your work, then either I did found a serious issue and you should be grateful, if you ignore that, that is misconduct, or I spread nonsense around and should get a meeting with the employer on why I harass my colleagues. Creating documentation is the professional way of ignoring problems. If I don't do that, I am acting against the profession I am employed as. Sweeping evidence of problems under the rack, will be later classified as something from at best misconduct to at worst malicious and criminal.
        BugsJustFindMe 1y ago
        > If you refuse to do something on a problem I raise If you think there's a problem and you don't block, then you're the one being negligent. If you review without blocking, you're indicating that you see no reasons why the code shouldn't be merged as is. > If you did ask me for my opinion, but ignore them In this scenario I saw that you don't see anything that needs to change. That is a direct expression of opinion from you by reviewing and not blocking. I am following your input efficiently by disregarding optional side quests you want to invoke. The problem in this scenario is that you want to say "I do not think you need to do anything else", which is what it means to review and not block, while simultaneously expecting the person to do something else. Your contradictory input is what creates the problem here.

There's a massive difference in communicated intent between overriding a blocking review and not blocking at all. Not blocking is a signal that you have no objection to merging the change as is.

1718627440 1y ago

> Not blocking is a signal that you have no objection to merging the change as is. Only when that is you social agreement. To others this has the meaning of "objection, but not rejection".

BugsJustFindMe 1y ago
If it makes you feel better, just think of ignoring non-blocking comments as equivalent to reading them and disagreeing.
- 1718627440 1y ago
  And this is what I think they are for. Just document that disagreement, and you have also countered future questions about this.
  - BugsJustFindMe 1y ago
    "no" If you care about whether your concerns are addressed by further discussion, block. If you don't actually care about whether something happens as indicated by not blocking, it's passive aggressive to expect more work. People forget that you can just as easily block pending responses to comments and then approve after.
    - 1718627440 1y ago
      > If you care about whether your concerns are addressed by further discussion, block. Well yes, but I don't care about them being addressed by discussion, I want them being addressed by your decision. > it's passive aggressive to expect more work. I am not sure what exactly "passive aggressive" is supposed to mean, but you generally get paid so that others can expect more work.
      - BugsJustFindMe 1y ago
        > I want them being addressed by your decision Sure, ok, so then they're addressed by the decision to ignore them because you don't care enough about them to make them blocking and there are other things to work on.
        1718627440 1y ago
        If you documented this and provide a valid rationale for ignoring the issue, then the comment did it's job.
        BugsJustFindMe 1y ago
        > If you documented this and provide I think your understanding of "ignore them" is different than mine. When I say ignore them I mean ignore them, not do more labor to document a thought process in response to them which is the opposite of ignoring them.
        1718627440 1y ago
        If you refuse to do something on a problem I raise, one of us should be fired. Either you, because you refuse to work for what you get money, or me because I hand out advice on random stuff I am not supposed to do. If you did ask me for my opinion, but ignore them, that's a refusal to work on your side. If you didn't asked me and I still started to mess with your work, then either I did found a serious issue and you should be grateful, if you ignore that, that is misconduct, or I spread nonsense around and should get a meeting with the employer on why I harass my colleagues. Creating documentation is the professional way of ignoring problems. If I don't do that, I am acting against the profession I am employed as. Sweeping evidence of problems under the rack, will be later classified as something from at best misconduct to at worst malicious and criminal.
        BugsJustFindMe 1y ago
        > If you refuse to do something on a problem I raise If you think there's a problem and you don't block, then you're the one being negligent. If you review without blocking, you're indicating that you see no reasons why the code shouldn't be merged as is. > If you did ask me for my opinion, but ignore them In this scenario I saw that you don't see anything that needs to change. That is a direct expression of opinion from you by reviewing and not blocking. I am following your input efficiently by disregarding optional side quests you want to invoke. The problem in this scenario is that you want to say "I do not think you need to do anything else", which is what it means to review and not block, while simultaneously expecting the person to do something else. Your contradictory input is what creates the problem here.