On Dec 20, 2007 12:10 PM, Nagy Gabor <ngaba@bibl.u-szeged.hu> wrote:
I said "almost critical", because it is really hard to follow what is happening there (or maybe I'm just too stupid to clearly understand that), and I think "black boxes" in our code are dangerous and unwanted (anyway, that codepart is needlessly long).
Ok, then I think we need to make this clear. Dan, if I'm assuming too much, let me know.
Something is _only_ a critical issue when it is broken. If it works, and is ugly, it's absolutely non-critical. fetchmail is some of the ugliest code I've seen anywhere. It's used on thousands of machines. While we care about code quality, it simple does not matter if it is ugly.
So please, at least for my sake, can you not claim something is critical unless it is either broken or a regression. These are critical. Duping a string for no reason, not critical. Minor memory leak, important, but not critical. Typo in some out, not critical. Inability to install packages, critical. Do you see what I mean?
This is to help us out here. Every time I see "oh man this is critical!" I have to go look at the code, and look at bug reports and realize... nothing is broken it's just ugly. I can either keep wasting hours lookup up unimportant issues, or I can ignore them and we fall into the "boy who cried wolf" rut.
Summary: I cannot say signed-off for sync.c, but maybe others can.
I don't think anyone has requested signoffs on specific source files
My Summary: No one cares what your code looks like http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001022.html
Well, short answer (I don't want to create an off thread): My main problem is not the fact that the code ugly, my main problem was that I had the feeling that it is not well understood. But I interpret your answer as I was wrong (== good news), so I revert my complaint. Bye