Re: We Want Quality

On Thu, 29 Jun 2000, Zeev Suraski wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jun 2000, Sascha Schumann wrote: > > > Following up: A discussion of communication models, > > perception and intention. > > > > Well, sure. If you want to read these rules as being > > oppressive and inpolite, you can do so, because they are > > context free. Many words do not transfer any information. In > > easily memorizable rules, such words are omitted. > > Since you're not an army commander, you're not exactly in a position to > lay out the rules in an easy-to-memorize fashion without even discussing > it with us first. It just looks bad. If we discuss it and arrive to a > concensus or an understanding, then summarizing it in short rules makes > sense. You don't begin with a summary though. That is called "starting a discussion." I should have worded the rules positive though. > > You are assuming > > > > Developing equals being able to commit. > > > > While it makes collaborating with other people harder > > (assuming they have no tools like email, diff, patch), I > > think it is an acceptable trade-off. > > From my experience, it isn't. Well, then please tell me why you cannot develop without being able to commit. - Sascha