Re:Linus Torvalds apologizes for his behavior, takes time off
by jdmichal on Monday September 17, 2018 @11:30AM
(#18006835)
Nothing about saying, "Thanks, but this won't be accepted until X, Y, and Z are fixed," precludes having a conversation. By all means, if you think X is not a problem, I would expect a response along the lines of, "I don't think X is a problem because insert mitigating factor here." Or, perhaps, "I don't understand the issue with X; could you explain?" In other words, allow directness to beget directness. Enumerating all the possible ways you might be wrong, just in case one of them is actually true, seems silly to me.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Linus Torvalds apologizes for his behavior, takes time off
by olavk on Monday September 17, 2018 @11:40AM
(#18006931)
In any case, using phrases like "thanks, but..." is an example of politeness.
Re:Linus Torvalds apologizes for his behavior, takes time off
by jdmichal on Monday September 17, 2018 @12:16PM
(#18007260)
I don't understand this... I used that exact phrase in my original response, calling it an example of being polite, but without passive-aggressive or manipulative weasel words.
Re:Linus Torvalds apologizes for his behavior, takes time off
by olavk on Monday September 17, 2018 @01:07PM
(#18007746)
I wanted to get back to my main point which was not the particular turn of phase in my example, but just that politeness have nothing to do with incompetence. This was in response to the comment that stated that politeness would mean accepting bad code, which I strongly disagree with. You show that a patch can be rejected with a polite and still technically relevant on-the-point message, so we agree about the important point. I don't think politeness implies passive aggressiveness either, so my example sentence might have been badly chosen.