Re: [TCLCORE] Improvements to the wording of the Tcl rules.

[<apn...@ya...>]

Nathan,

There is a fundamental disconnect between your preferred mode of working and
well, pretty much everyone else. This is true not only for documentation but
code as well. You have expressed disdain before for the TIP process and
(paraphrasing) preferred a style where people commit stuff and people who
disagree can change it or revert back and forth. You specifically said this
about the wiki as well, where you made changes that the original authors of
the pages expressly objected to. Paraphrasing again, "if you don't like the
changes, revert it"

I will not say your style just creates chaos for everyone working off the
code base only because we will just get into another argument. I'll just say
instead that it is not the process followed in this group. For any
*significant* changes, whether code or documentation, the process to be
followed is to branch or TIP, have it reviewed, then merge into trunk.

Not the reverse.

No one is arguing about whether your changes to the manpages are warranted
or not. The point is major changes like that must be reviewed *before*
commit to trunk, not after.

We already discussed Tcl.n where it is not clear *if* there  are semantic
changes or not or whether it is more readable (sorry, your single opinion
does not carry more weight than anyone else's). I already pointed out your
removal of the words "when the underlying device is ready" from the chan
manpage section on events, which *is* a semantic change whether inadvertent
or made to bolster rationale for your code changes to generate I/O events
irrespective of channel state.

That is why review is necessary. And expecting review *without* even
announcing a significant change has been made is not workable. No one
reviews every commit. And then if there is a back and forth on the trunk for
disputed changes, it is just chaotic for everyone else working on the code
base.

Please, for significant changes,

- work on a branch
- ask for a review
- commit

/Ashok

PS Committing under the fig leaf of a "bug fix" is equally avoidable.



-----Original Message-----
From: Poor Yorick <org...@po...> 
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2024 6:11 PM
To: tcl...@li...
Subject: Re: [TCLCORE] Improvements to the wording of the Tcl rules.

On 2024-06-10 14:19, Jan Nijtmans wrote:
> Op wo 15 mei 2024 om 10:44 schreef Poor Yorick:
>> I've done some extensive work on the Tcl documentation in the past.  
>> One
>> example is chan.n, where I reduced the word count by 40%:
>> 
>>         https://core.tcl-lang.org/tcl/info/eb627bda27968937int
>> 
>> Another example is SetResult.3, where I reduced the word count by 46%.
>> 
>>         https://core.tcl-lang.org/tcl/info/8dba618fe6b6f8bb
>> 
>> Both of these pages are significantly more readable as a result.
> 
> Today, in the TCT meeting, it was decided to back out those
> changes from trunk, and move them aside to its own
> branch in order to be reviewed properly later. So, your
> rewrite is not going to be thrown away.
> 
> Harald already asked you, 2 weeks ago, to do this
> backout, and put up those changes for review. But
> it doesn't look like you have time to do that.
> 

What is the rationale for backing these contributions out?  Where there
mistakes identified that were not easily correctable?  If not, that's 
the wrong
way to go about things.  A contribution should stand unless there is a
particular problem with it.  The work on SetResult.3 required 80 hours 
to
complete.  Someone should review it and note any deficiencies *before*
reverting it, not after.

-- 
Yorick



_______________________________________________
Tcl-Core mailing list
Tcl...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tcl-core