[pacman-dev] abs split from pacman before release

[Nagy Gabor]

> 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
> 

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