On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 6:53 PM Maxime Devos <maximede...@telenet.be> wrote:
> On 30-01-2023 20:56, Aleix Conchillo Flaqué wrote: > > [...] Maxime found the time to review a quite big PR and added a > > bunch of useful comments. Reviewing that PR took a lot of effort and I > > just felt better after fixing all the comments made. I was even > > surprised he (I'm assuming this pronoun) did. > > Unfortunately you are assuming incorrectly; s/he/she/. (*) > For future reference, 'they' is usually a safe ‘default’ (except when > they hate that, eergh). At least, for some values of 'usual' that might > not be representative. > > Oh, well. I confess I did a quick Google search but I clearly assumed incorrectly based on the results, my bad. I don't hate using they at all. > [...] And my feeling is she just wants things to > > be as correct as possible, which is quite important, especially in a > > programming language. > > That's it, yes. > > > Exchanging messages in a written form has its own challenges (your mood > > on that day, maybe you phrase things in a way that can be misunderstood, > > ...). So I will stop writing and just leave you all with a smiley face. > :-) > > > > Best, > > Something I would like to add here, is that these kind of emotional > challenges often appear self-inflicted to me. I mean, the mailing list > is a rather technical medium for technical talk about technical things. > There is no emotional stuff there unless you add it or you assume it. > > Instead of analysing technical messages on the ML for whether there's > some emotional hidden message behind it, can't we just assume that any > technical messages are just technical, meaning literally what's written > in them? > > That's how I see it too and that would be ideal. > I'm not saying that the emotional stuff should be completely forbidden, > but like, with a little care you can separate the technical from the > emotional, e.g.: > > ‘[Oh, I wanted that feature for a long time!] > > This won't work at all because it assumes frobs are never barzed, > yet they are when [...]. I'm thinking you'll need a completely > different approach, though I don't have a clue what this approach > would be. > > [Keep up the good work!]’ > > (The [...] lines are nice, but optional. Also the brackets are > optional.). Like, the second paragraph just says it won't work at all > because $reasons. While very unfortunate, there is no malice anywhere; > it's just technical stuff. Likewise, the first [...] and last [...], > while emotionally positive, are irrelevant for the evaluation of the > technical middle part. > > Again, that's how I try to approach it as well. And actually I believe I tend to be emotional by adding positive messages as the ones you just mentioned. Even though they are irrelevant I like to think people like to read nice things after all (at least, I do). > > Aleix > > > > (*) There are people who apologise after making such mistaken > assumptions, which I suppose is a quite reasonable course of action to > take in general, but please don't in this case? It just seems > embarrassing to me. > Since you made it optional with ?... I apologize. I don't mind embarrassing myself (and I hope I don't embarrass you). Best and keep up the good work! Aleix
