On Sun, Aug 25, 2024, at 22:28, Gina P. Banyard wrote:
> On Friday, 23 August 2024 at 23:55, Rob Landers <rob@bottled.codes> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2024, at 23:06, Larry Garfield wrote:
>>> 
>>> With generics, the syntax isn't the hard part.  The hard part is type 
>>> inference, or accepting that generic-using code will just be 
>>> extraordinarily verbose and clumsy.  There is (as I understand from Arnaud, 
>>> who again can correct me if I'm wrong) not a huge amount of difference in 
>>> effort between supporting only Foo<Bar> and supporting Foo<Bar<Baz>>.  The 
>>> nesting isn't the hard part.  The hard part is not having to type Foo<Bar> 
>>> 4 times across 2 files every time you do something with generics.  If that 
>>> can be resolved satisfactorily (and performantly), then the road map to 
>>> reified generics is reasonably visible.
>> 
>> Ok. But wasn't there something about nesting causing super-linear 
>> performance issues? So, disable nesting and don't worry about inference.
>> [...]
>> Ah, this is what I was thinking of. Thank you. Yeah, instead of "nesting" 
>> prior, I was referring to union types.
> 
> Rob, with all the kindness I can give, please condense your emails to have a 
> semblance of sense.
> This is not a bar where you are having a one on one conversation.
> You are sending emails to thousands of people on a mailing list that can read 
> you.
> It would be appreciated if you could go over everything you read, digest the 
> content, and then form a reply.
> Or at the minimum, if you realize that a previous remark you made does not 
> apply, redraft the email.
> And possibly even sit on it for a bit before sending it, as you routinely 
> come up with a point you forgot to include in your email.
> 
> Reading the mailing list is an exhausting task, especially when the volume is 
> excessive.
> As a reminder to everyone, we have rules: 
> https://github.com/php/php-src/blob/master/docs/mailinglist-rules.md
> 
> However, in your case, please note the following rule:
> 
>> If you notice that your posting ratio is much higher than that of other 
>> people, double-check the above rules. Try to wait a bit longer before 
>> sending your replies to give other people more time to digest your answers 
>> and more importantly give you the opportunity to make sure that you 
>> aggregate your current position into a single mail instead of multiple ones.
> 
> For the past 2–3 months, you have sent the vast majority of emails on this 
> list, this is not what I would consider normal nor expected for your level of 
> "seniority" (for the lack of better word) on the project.
> This is not to say to stop posting and replying, just to do it in a more 
> conscious manner for the rest of us reading you.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Gina P. Banyard
> 
>> 

Hi Gina!

I hope this email finds you well. Sincerely, thank you for your feedback; it's 
clear that you are addressing this issue with the best intentions.

I want to say that I understand the importance of this rule and keeping the 
mailing list conversations relevant, especially given the large audience. I 
want to also acknowledge that I have occasionally responded quickly without 
fully considering the impact on readability. Moving forward, I will make a 
conscious effort to ensure my emails are more thoroughly reviewed.

Regarding your point about condensing emails, I see where you are coming from. 
However, my approach has been to respond within the same thread to maintain 
context, which I believe helps keep the discussion more organized for threaded 
readers. I understand that there is probably a balance there and will be more 
mindful in the future.

> For the past 2–3 months, you have sent the vast majority of emails on this 
> list, this is not what I would consider normal

To understand just how bad I was breaking this rule, I created 
https://email.catcounter.guru/ for anyone on the list to see where they 
currently stand with their post-ratio in comparison to others. It is updated 
every two hours, and you can enter an email address in the top-right to unmask 
an email address, otherwise the email addresses are anonymous.

Best regards,

Rob

Reply via email to