Re: [PATCH v3 12/34] fsmonitor-fs-listen-macos: stub in backend for MacOS

Jeff Hostetler [off-list ref] writes:

I'm not sure that there is a "correct" answer here, but for the sake
of harmony, in V4 I'll set this to "darwin" and update the name of
the backend driver source file to match.  So that we are consistently
using 1 term throughout "Makefile" and "config.mak.uname".

	ifeq ($(uname_S),Darwin)
	...
		FSMONITOR_DAEMON_BACKEND = darwin
	endif
...

I do not think it would help "harmony" to change the name, but any
one of 'darwin', 'macos' and 'osx' would be fine.

It was irritating to see a simple "why is this particular name
chosen?" answered with such a hostility, when even a "we have no
deep reasoning behind the choice of the name. It is only seen by
developers in names of the source files, and it does not make much
difference" would have been sufficient.  I somehow view it more
problematic.

I guess the blame goes both ways, though.  We all have worked with
each other long enough to know which of your recipients are prone to
go overly defensive when asked questions, and we should know that it
would help to prepend "I am just being curious but..." to your
questions whose answers do not make a huge difference at the end
either way (or not asking such questions at all).

Thanks.

Junio C Hamano wrote:

I guess the blame goes both ways, though.  We all have worked with
each other long enough to know which of your recipients are prone to
go overly defensive when asked questions, and we should know that it
would help to prepend "I am just being curious but..." to your
questions whose answers do not make a huge difference at the end
either way (or not asking such questions at all).

I disagree. It's not OK for contributors to react defensively when asked
questions, and in particular I don't think it's OK that some
contributors are punished for merely disagreeing, while others are given
a pass for snarling at feedback. This is double standards.

The Git project should not play favorites, and all contributors should
be asked to assume good faith.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith

It should be implied that the feedback given is to try to improve the
project, it should not need to be stated.

-- 
Felipe Contreras