Clojurians
#cloverage
<
2016-08-12
>

This page is not created by, affiliated with, or supported by Slack Technologies, Inc.

lvh00:08:08

that’s what worries me because there’s no objective criterion for that to end

jaceklach00:08:08

eh, I think it’s a mix

jaceklach00:08:15

> Sorry for playing a certain amount of hardball on this one, but we don't want to massively reshuffle things until we see if this works well. this is certainly relevant

lvh00:08:30

so even if we have this productivity forever...

jaceklach00:08:52

well, I think part of it is the case of people getting used to the idea

lvh00:08:54

It feels like dysfunction is what we already have though :smile:

lvh00:08:06

I agree, and that’s kinda what worries me

lvh00:08:16

it’s a social problem, not a technical one (isn’t it always)

jaceklach00:08:22

yeah, definitely. A mix of status quo bias and a certain degree of entitlement.

jaceklach00:08:24

I’d consider asking Tom directly if he’s the person making the decision about whether and when cloverage can be transfered to the github group. If he’s not, ask to involve them in the conversation directly (I expect there’s a certain amount of he-said she-said going on when you ask for specific requirements); possibly via email if they’re more comfortable with a private conv. Maybe give them a day to respond to your last comments though :stuck_out_tongue: Also be aware that everyone in LShift is in the UK so the timezones are part of why the discussion takes a while

jaceklach00:08:04

Anyway, good luck, and I wanna say again how I’m really happy to see some movement around cloverage again :slightly_smiling_face:

lvh00:08:09

sure, I also want to be cognizant of their point of view

lvh00:08:21

I think it’ll end up OK, it’s just, eh, uncomfortable right now

lvh00:08:31

I am definitely glad that it is moving as well

lvh00:08:42

It’s hard for me to argue for Clojure internally when we can’t have decent code coverage