Van Lindberging is funny because it's an extreme response to what some devs see as a real problem, opinions without patches. Zed's pointing out he does in fact have patches, and can have more patches if they're likely to be accepted.
He will not do it. He doesn't like to play with others or have his brilliant ideas scrutinized by who he considers lesser people.
So, the way he has to prove me, and others who agree with me, is
- to provide the said patches (a plus, if they don't collide with already existing libraries, let's call Zed's SMTP "zsfasmtp") in publicly accessible libraries
- accept criticism and patches from others
- work with the Python maintainers to help them include his fucking awesome libraries in a future Python release
And that's it.
Until then, we all would gain if only he did shut the fuck up.
a) Either you won't get good quality code because Zed may be right.
or
b) You will get Zed's python branch because he/others got pissed off enough and the python community will be split into two.
I say B is a good solution. Eventually python-fusion will come out. :)
Edit: Let the war begin!
I dunno, what do you think is common to all of these situations? :P
(point being, zed surely could stir the pot less, but he's not changing what's in the pot. And if two pots happen to be similar, i don't know that that's his fault)
Exactly, being an asshole all the time isn't changing anything for the better.
I can see how politeness would be more successful, but I am comparing causing visible public scrutiny while being an asshole vs no public scrutiny.....and you say this approach never could and never has worked?
The truth is that one must create these false hypotheticals in order to justify zed being an asshole.
Huh? Maybe try a re-read of my post.
I'm not justifying him being an asshole, I am countering your assertion that if you are an asshole while pointing out legitimate shortcomings, that it will have no positive affect.
This is a false choice as is clear by your statement that zed is high profile. If he were polite there would still be public scrutiny so your binary hypothetical is meaningless.