[pacman-dev] abs split from pacman before release

[Aaron Griffin]

On Dec 20, 2007 12:10 PM, Nagy Gabor <ngaba at 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