[Python-Dev] How far to go with user-friendliness

[Terry Reedy]

On 7/19/2015 11:52 AM, Ethan Furman wrote:
> On 07/18/2015 05:13 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
>> However, from the core developer side [...]
>
> Participants              Core Dev?     Position on "assret"
> ----------------------    -----------   --------------------
> Dima Tismek               no            -1
> Xavier Morel              no            -1
> Florian Bruhin            no             ?
> Mark Lawrence             no            ?
> Stephen J. Turnbull       no            -.5 (?)
> Alexander                 no            -1
> David Mertz               no            -1
> Ron Adam                  no            ?
> Christie Wilson           no            +1 (?)
> Ben Finney                no            -1
> Isaac Schwabacher         no            -1
> MRAB                      ?*            -0 (?)
>
> Michael Foord             yes           +1
> Antoine Pitrou            yes           +1
> Victor Stinner            yes           +1 (?)
> Nick Coghlan              yes           +1
> Paul Moore                yes           +0
> A.M. Kuchling             yes           -0
> Robert Collins            yes           -1
> Brett Canon               yes           -.5 (?)
> Berker Peksağ             yes           -.5 (?)
> Steven D'Aprano           yes           -1
> Barry Warsaw              yes           -.5 (?)
> Ethan Furman              yes           -1

   Terry Reedy               yes           -1

> Looks like this thread was pretty evenly split between core devs and
> non-core devs.
>
> Looks like a definite majority of non-core devs, and at least a slight
> majority of core devs, think "assret" should be removed.
>
> Apparently you do not speak for all core devs on this issue, so please
> don't pretend that you do.

To be fair, I think Nick was speaking from the viewpoint of a core-dev 
who volunteers to review, edit, and commit a patch, and spends at least 
an hour doing so.  I do not believe he was pretending to speak for us 
collectively as post-commit reviewers.

> Oh, and just a small tidbit of info -- it took longer to research and
> write this email than it did to write the patch to remove "assret"
> checking [1].
>
> Seems to me a lot of fuss could have been avoided by just acknowledging
> that a mistake may have been made, and asking for patches if anybody
> cared enough about it.

I agree, and considered posting something nearly identical, but I was 
not ready to volunteer a patch.

Given that the issue is one of only partial reversion, and that a new 
patch would therefore be needed, I also think that some fuss would have 
been avoided if one of the initial objectors had done what you did, or 
volunteered to write a new patch, or had at least acknowledged that 
someone other than Michael could and should write the proposed new patch.

To me, the important issue is this: none of the people listed above are 
'stupid', and little of what we say seriously is 'stupid'.  Ditto for 
similar adjectives.  We should therefore give each other the benefit of 
the doubt (more than currently) when responding.

Bad: the patch (or in this case, a portion of it) is stupid.

Good (or certainly much better): I do not understand the rationale, or 
consider it inadequate.  It makes me queasy.  It looks like a step 
toward uglifying Python.

Bad: the objections to the patch are stupid.

Good (or certainly much better): <I think Nick already tried to fill in 
this blank>

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy