On 10/18/2013 07:04 PM, Edward Diener wrote:
A long sub-thread like this is bad.
No a sub-thread like this is not bad.
Please read this if you are not already familiar with it, or re-read it if you are: http://bikeshed.org/ Mails like your are bad for some of the same reasons that bikeshedding is bad. * You are sending a mail to a mailing list full of people (just like with bikeshedding) with a query you can solve on your own. * You are dragging the thread off-topic (just like with bikeshedding). This used to be a thread about modularization. Now it's 'the run grep for Edward thread'. * It causes value-free endless repetitions (just like with bikeshedding). * Other people get tied up in what you write (just like with bikeshedding). * Your mail creates an environment in which such sub-threads are common (just like with bikeshedding). A nuisance to be expected. * It creates an expectation of the same thing from others (just like with bikeshedding). It's bad like bikeshedding. Notice, because if I don't point it out you might not (though it should go without saying), that I said it's bad for the some of the same reasons as bikeshedding is bad. I didn't say you were bikeshedding. I expected such nuisance and put a note in my initial mail about it. I should have also noted 'Don't ask me to run grep for you'. I will next time. I actually thought you were being deliberately ironic for comedy when you quoted my note, being careful to snip below it, and then asked a question which obviously showed you have not read or understood the thread so far: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/245078/focus=245138 I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/245078/focus=245140 and I repeated myself. Notice, because if I don't point it out you might not (though it should go without saying), that causing endless repetition is part of 'badness' in my list above. Your response was incredible: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/245078/focus=245142 It is worded to read to imply 'Your claim is wrong. I checked and didn't see graph. Where do you see it?' Now it turns out that you somehow managed to not search recursively. That is certainly bad. You need to be more-sure before responding. Many people will get your mail. Other people read your mail and take what you write at face value. Notice, because if I don't point it out you might not (though it should go without saying), that getting other people caught up in confusion is a common bad trait with bikeshedding. The mails I pointed out are excellent examples of what I was referring to as 'low quality' responses here: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/245078/focus=245123 There are others I've encountered though in my short time on this list. Vincente has also asked me to run grep for him a few times by now too: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/244856/focus=244888 and it took a couple of mails to land the difference between today and yesterday: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/244216/focus=244242 These mails only create confusion. They are being sent without enough thought. Here's an example where a confused response resulted from not reading the attached commit. Beman read the response, and I guess also did not read the commit, and also got caught up in the confusion: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/244392/focus=244396 Notice, because if I don't point it out you might not (though it should go without saying), that getting other people caught up in confusion is a common bad trait with bikeshedding. It also led me to expect the same quality from others before expecting anything else: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/245080/focus=245081 Notice, because if I don't point it out you might not (though it should go without saying), that creating 'expection of the same thing' is a common bad trait with bikeshedding. I'm writing this mail because I should not have to write this mail. Such react-before-looking-or-thinking mails are bad. They drag threads off-topic. They confuse others. It's a bigger problem on this list than any other I've been on. This sub-thread *is* bad. I hope this mail helps you understand why. Thanks, Steve.