On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Norbert Thiebaud <nthieb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Robinson Tryon > <bishop.robin...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I felt like I was working hard to go through appropriate channels... > > Yeah, you did well. I'm sorry I apparently started a bikeshed on this... > I have missed ESC of nov 21st (my fault), but 'the guys doing the work > should choose' > is not 'the guys doing the work should organize a beauty pageant election'
IMHO 'the guys doing the work should choose' means 'we're going to leave it up to the best judgment of those people to decide'. I thought that we had a bunch of okay abbreviations, and aside from tdf# (which I wanted to reserve for future use), all of the other names seemed good enough to me, and didn't raise any red flags when I checked-in with the ESC. So, with that information in hand, I figured that I would ask for input from QA, first in the form of searching for consensus, and second (if need be) as a voting process. QA doesn't get to make decisions like this very often, so I thought it would be something fun for us to decide as a team. Alternatively, if we want to interpret this message as ' *only* the guys doing the work should choose', then that's fine with me, too. By my reckoning, that list includes - Cloph (for fixing bots and websites, creating DNS redirects, and generally putting up with all of my requests) - Dennis Roczek (for a bunch of detailed bot work translating urls on the wiki) - Andras Timar (for updating urls in the translations and core git repos) - Tollef (Doing all of the work on the FDO end) - Me (for doing a lot of legwork on the migration) - Some others I've undoubtedly forgotten > On the dev side we are not used to 'vote'. decisions are usually just > taken. When there is some controversy, the interested parties expose > the merit of their respective positions, explaining the rational for > their choice (and I mean _rational_ not _feelings_). ok > That usually lead to either a compromise to address each other points, > or the parties rallying around the rational of one side (we all have > 'opinions' on anything when asked... but more often than not we do not > _care_ that much about a given topic, so unless we have a strong > argument to offer we usually do not demand that our opinions be > counted as strongly as the one of the people intimately involved with > the work and problems associated with it.. iow 'pick your battle > wisely' :-) )), or more often a combination of both. > in 3 years we where driven to a vote only once.. and even then that > was more to have each position 'on the record'. ok > So in that light I would point out again the criteria _I_ think are > relevant for the name here: > > 1/ short. the summary commit message is the 1st line of a commit > message, and is limited to 80 chars (72 preferred), and when a commit > refer to a bug we want the bug reference in that message. > 2/ obvious meaning and easy to remember and type, as much as possible. > > The opposition I've seen so far to lo# are centered around 'it can be > confused with the abbreviation of the product'. I think that is a > feature not a bug. > in the context of bugzilla the use will always be lo#<number> the # > make it clear that it is a bug number and remove any ambiguity... > furtheremore these _are_ libreoffice bugs.. lo = libreoffice, # = bug > here. So, other abbreviation may have merit, and may prevails, but > discarding lo# for that reason seems a red herring to me. > > for reference a quick grep of the log message give use the following uses: > > fdo#nnnn > deb#nnnn > n#nnnnn > #innnnnn# > rhbz#nnnnnn > CID#nnnnn > cp#nnnn > bnc#nnnn > abi#nnnn > i#nnnn > #nnnnn# > lp#nnnnn > > and a mix bag of some mistyped variations thereof (like #fdonnnn) Up at the top of your email you said: "I'm sorry I apparently started a bikeshed on this..." ...but the length and breadth of your email belies that characterization of this particular decision about abbreviations. This is clearly not a bikeshed decision, or you and Mat would (hopefully) not be so invested in what abbreviation is chosen. If it's a big deal, then yes, I agree we should pay more attention to it. If it's not a big deal, then we go ahead and pick from the list. I just need to get a clear message, one way or the other. I'm sympathetic to input from the developers, even at a late stage in this process, which is precisely why I listened to Eike's comments and wrote "The devs really like lo# (as it gives them more room in commit messages)." Cheers, --R _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
