bug#40671: [DOC] modify literal objects

[Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen@web.de>]

Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> writes:

> On 4/28/20 10:25 AM, Drew Adams wrote:
> > Has anyone agreed with you
>
> Nobody's happy with the current documentation's language (not even
> me), but nobody has proposed specific wording improvements either.

I think the feedback would be better if you had been more cooperative/
open minded at the beginning.  You have started committing stuff without
even asking whether people like your approach in general.  What if
people think slight rewording is not enough?  You started the thing not
very cooperatively, and that's how things developed.  Just my point of
view.

> That's what committees do sometimes; we might not agree, but the guy
> who does most of the work generates something that nobody has the time
> to improve significantly.

We all do stuff here nobody else has time to do.  Obviously, in this
case a collective brainstorming at the beginning would have been better.

Apart from questions like "please give me a better wording for this I
wrote if _you_ don't like it", why did you never ask "how could we
improve this aspect of the manual, what do you think?" or "do people
agree with what I have in mind?".  Now stuff is already in the repo,
it's inconvenient to review, and the committer doesn't seem to be very
open to other perspectives.

A lot of the discussion here currently is rather destructive, yes,
that's not good, I guess everyone involved is to blame.


Michael.