AF:
NF:0
PS:10
SRH:1
SFN:
DSR:
MID:<20080306134904.7c9015f2@ripper.onstor.net>
CFG:
PT:0
S:andy.sharp@onstor.com
RQ:
SSV:onstor-exch02.onstor.net
NSV:
SSH:
R:<maxim.kozlovsky@onstor.com>
MAID:1
X-Sylpheed-Privacy-System:
X-Sylpheed-Sign:0
SCF:#mh/Mailbox/sent
RMID:#imap/andys@onstor.net@onstor-exch02.onstor.net/INBOX	0	BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E08C0ECD5@onstor-exch02.onstor.net
X-Sylpheed-End-Special-Headers: 1
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 13:52:34 -0800
From: Andrew Sharp <andy.sharp@onstor.com>
To: "Maxim Kozlovsky" <maxim.kozlovsky@onstor.com>
Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 28203 for review
Message-ID: <20080306135234.45f42b6c@ripper.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E08C0ECD5@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
References: <WEBMAILLAMwBnuPnUKw000085dd@mail.onstor.com>
	<20080306101705.17260a80@ripper.onstor.net>
	<BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E08C0EC16@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
	<20080306105217.525eb047@ripper.onstor.net>
	<BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E08C0EC71@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
	<20080306111341.2d075dcc@ripper.onstor.net>
	<BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E08C0EC90@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
	<20080306114734.6305e651@ripper.onstor.net>
	<BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E08C0ECD5@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
Organization: Onstor
X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.8.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

OK, let's take a look:

I'm speaking from a place of extensive experience; you're throwing out
incomplete, untested theories based on erroneous assumptions.

I've listed 3-4 quite good reasons to do it, you've managed to list
exactly zero reasons not to do it.

I'd say that's infinitely convincing.  And if you're being honest, so
should you.


On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 11:57:22 -0800 "Maxim Kozlovsky"
<maxim.kozlovsky@onstor.com> wrote:

> Not convincing at all. Any company which switches to another bug
> database without preserving old defects is completely retarded. You
> can write yourself a script which will print defect descriptions from
> p4 change if you have trouble looking them up. 
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Andy Sharp
> >Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 11:48 AM
> >To: Maxim Kozlovsky
> >Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 28203 for review
> >
> >On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 11:20:32 -0800 "Maxim Kozlovsky"
> ><maxim.kozlovsky@onstor.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> >From: Andy Sharp
> >> >Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 11:14 AM
> >> >To: Maxim Kozlovsky
> >> >Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 28203 for review
> >> >
> >> >On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 11:08:29 -0800 "Maxim Kozlovsky"
> >> ><maxim.kozlovsky@onstor.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Well to bad I was not on that meeting otherwise we would never
> >> >> reach
> >> a
> >> >> consensus on such an idiotic convention.
> >> >
> >> >Oh, you were there all right.
> >> >
> >> >What's so idiotic about it?
> >> [MK]
> >> What is not?
> >
> >
> >I think I see.  I tried to ask nicely.  If I did not succeed in
> >asking nicely, I apologize.  I'm not always very good at doing that.
> >
> >There are a couple of very good reasons to do it, and I know it
> >because I've experienced it, but probably you haven't.
> >
> >If just the bug number is put in the comment, then if the company
> >switches to a different bug tracking tool, which sometimes happens,
> >then the number becomes completely useless.  The other reason is that
> >if a developer is digging through a series of changes to a file or
> >files, if s/he has to look up a different bug number for every
> >change, it is very annoying and inefficient.  But just cutting and
> >pasting the headline, or even just typing in a quick paraphrase of
> >the headline, is far less time consuming on the front end.  I've
> >also been there where I had 40 changes to go through looking for
> >something, and had to constantly look up a bug number for almost
> >every change.  It sucked, and I mean sucked completely.
> >
> >There are other reasons as well -- for people who look at a lot of
> >changes, sometimes the bug description means more than the
> >description of the change itself, so in those situations it's nice
> >to have the bug description handy there to read.
> >
> >
> >> >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> >> >From: Andy Sharp
> >> >> >Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 10:52 AM
> >> >> >To: Maxim Kozlovsky
> >> >> >Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 28203 for review
> >> >> >
> >> >> >No, I mean ours, reached in a consensus of opinions in a
> >> >> >software meeting quite a while ago. You have a problem with
> >> >> >that?  Because
> >> you
> >> >> >seem to be the only developer in the group who doesn't seem to
> >> >> >be able to do it, and it's not acceptable.  As a senior
> >> >> >developer
> and
> >> >> >one of
> >> >> the
> >> >> >best we have, you of all people should be setting an example of
> >> >> >discipline and professionalism to the other developers.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 10:31:49 -0800 "Maxim Kozlovsky"
> >> >> ><maxim.kozlovsky@onstor.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> You mean your convention, not ours.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> >> >> >From: Andy Sharp
> >> >> >> >Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 10:17 AM
> >> >> >> >To: Maxim Kozlovsky
> >> >> >> >Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 28203 for review
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >On 6 Mar 2008 10:05:01 -0800 Maxim Kozlovsky
> >> >> >> ><maxim.kozlovsky@onstor.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> Change 28203 by maximk@maximk-13 on 2008/03/06 10:04:38
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> 	   22589.
> >> >> >> >> 	Check if the /etc/timezone (/etc/localtime for
> >> >> >> >> BSD) exists an print more appropriate message than "No
> >> >> >> >> such file or
> >> >> directory".
> >> >> >> >> 	   Reviewed by jong.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Max,
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >I'm asking again, please try to conform to our conventions
> >> >> >> >for checkin comments by including both the bug number as
> >> >> >> >well as the bug headline. You know you should so please do
> >> >> >> >it.
