>better option than the 'professional' option of passive-aggressive removal of commit priveleges
Actually, the move Linus chose seems pretty "professional" in the "this is pretty good management" sense:
- The error was made public so that it won't be repeated
- The exposition was done in such a way to understand exactly how much he doesn't want this to happen again
The "calling it out in front of everybody" thing is.... I don't know how necessary/unnecessary that is. But he doesn't attack the person, he attacked the issue. That's the essential
>>The error was made public so that it won't be repeated
People don't read 2 decades full of email history before committing to a repo.
The best way to prevent such mistakes is to provide the commit access only to a branch- run your test on top of it, and merge it with the main branch only if all the test cases pass.
>>The exposition was done in such a way to understand exactly how much he doesn't want this to happen again
You can say what you what you want to say, without insulting someone.
>>I don't know how necessary/unnecessary that is. But he doesn't attack the person, he attacked the issue. That's the essential
It doesn't work that way.
You are your work. That's now people take it. Doesn't matter how you want them to take.
And that's not just with programmers. Try doing that with someone like a doctor, or a teacher, or a painter or anyone for that matter. Try telling them, how something they do should be done otherwise and watch how they react.
Actually, the move Linus chose seems pretty "professional" in the "this is pretty good management" sense:
- The error was made public so that it won't be repeated
- The exposition was done in such a way to understand exactly how much he doesn't want this to happen again
The "calling it out in front of everybody" thing is.... I don't know how necessary/unnecessary that is. But he doesn't attack the person, he attacked the issue. That's the essential