Parameter names - bug 155628

[Gervase Markham]

Shane H. W. Travis wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004, Gervase Markham wrote:
>>Shane H. W. Travis wrote:
>>
>>>>Of course, you could make aliases...
>>>
>>>I'm offering to clean up our
>>>make it more consistent, professional throughout so that
>>>it conforms to a single style, thus making it both more readable and
>>>maintainable.
>>
>>No, you aren't :-)
> 
> Yes, I am, Gerv.
> 
> I cannot believe the hubris.  Where do you get off telling me why I am or am
> not doing something? 

Please read what I said carefully, because otherwise you are going to 
get far more annoyed with me than I actually deserve.

I didn't tell you *why* you are or aren't doing anything. I told you 
*what* you are doing. IMO, an offer to change the names of the 
parameters is not an offer to "clean up... maintainable" (#include your 
sentence above).

> You're obviously not familiar with my work on the documents, where any patch
> I've up loaded has *also* included a re-formatting of the SGML for at least
> 50 lines around that patch, and sometimes as much as the whole document (see
> my recent FAQ overhaul).

Sure :-) My point is merely that your current proposal doesn't match the 
aims you outlined.

>>If you were, you'd be changing the formatting of a
>>load of code first,
> 
> I can do this on docs because only about three people ever look at the
> documents. If I thought I could get away with re-indenting the entirety of
> the code base to match an agreed-on style, I'd do it... but I expect that
> the hue and cry against such a widespread change for 'such minimal gain'
> would be... well... would be much like this one has started out being. Are
> you going to tell me that you'd support such an initiative? If so, I'd love
> to hear it.

I might well, actually. Most of our code is in a standard style, but 
there are some bits that aren't. If someone came with a proposal which 
said "Actually these X files need reformatting, which is Y lines of 
changes, and I'd use automatic reformatting program Z to make sure I 
didn't accidentally introduce bugs in the code or change lines that 
didn't need changing", then yes, I might well support it.

>>But anyway, if we want to spend time trying to look good,
> 
> What's this 'we'? Are you offering to help fix this bug? Speaking on my
> behalf? Or do you just have a mouse in your pocket? :-)

We, as in the Bugzilla development team which we are all part of.

>>I suggest this is not the best way to be spending it.
> 
> "This doesn't match Gerv's priorities," and, "This isn't what Gerv would
> consider to be a productive use of time," are perfectly valid reasons for
> *Gerv* not to do it, but guess what? Not everyone in the world is Gerv!

Indeed not - as you say, thankfully. However, no man is an island, and 
the actions of one developer on the team have an effect on the others - 
in the code they have to maintain, the support questions they have to 
answer, and the bugs they have to fix.

> Hyperbole aside, if you've got (what you consider to be) better ways to
> accomplish the same goals I stated in the opening paragraph that you *would*
> be willing to support, I'm willing to listen.

I did suggest one, which was to modify the plan to use aliases so that 
external code was not broken. As Myk points out, because of the single 
API point, this isn't a large modification, and would make both him and 
I much happier with the proposal.

> But don't presume that you know me, or my motivations -- even if you try to
> make it less offensive by putting a smiley at the end, and especially not
> when my actions have already put the lie to your words.

Please climb down off your high horse. As I explained above, I didn't 
say anything about you or your motivations, I said something about the 
likely effect of your proposed actions. All we're doing is having a 
discussion about code. It's not something to fall out over.

Gerv