Re: [BUG] CVS HEAD "find-file-confirm-inexistent-file" in lisp/files.el

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: address@hidden (Randal L. Schwartz)
> Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 06:29:19 -0700
> Cc: address@hidden
> 
> >>>>> "Juanma" == Juanma Barranquero <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> Juanma> On 7/10/07, Randal L. Schwartz <address@hidden> wrote:
> >> I'm not sure what you're objecting to at this point.  Maybe nothing.
> 
> Juanma> Same that Eli was objecting: the original rudeness (made more poignant
> Juanma> by you being wrong, though you being correct wouldn't make it more
> Juanma> palatable).
> 
> To be rude, it would have to be directed at the person.  I was pointing out a
> failed process and a failed result in the most direct manner possible.  If the
> person can't distinguish themselves from their results, that's an issue for
> them, not me.

Sigh.  I have learned from hard experience that when someone tells me
they were offended by my rudeness, it's time for apologies and
rewording, not for ``it's your problem'' type of counter-attack, even
if I think I didn't say anything wrong.  Isn't it enough that two
people with quite different cultural background living half-world
apart were hurt by your wording?  Isn't it possible that what was
meant to point at ``a failed process and a failed result'' could be
reasonably read as a rude attack directed at all and every one of the
developers personally?

> And if you're contributing as a committer to a large project,
> you'd better have proper processes, *and* an ability to take heat for failure
> to comply.

We _can_ take heat, but it doesn't mean you must test us every time.

As for proper processes, show me one that will completely avoid bugs
during development, and I'm sure we will adopt it right on the spot.

> I *am* going to do what it takes for the shared result to be
> effective.

I think you would see the same efficiency if your original message
were less aggressive.