Hey Jerry,
On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 3:13 PM Jerry Darko <jerry.darko_at_cnftech.com> wrote:
> Brian,
>
> We understand the frustration for sure but it's better to have a
> conversation of "here's what didn't work for me", "here are some potential
> things to make it better", "adding xyz to the documentation would have made
> it better".
>
> Better for the conversation to leave out the negative comments and give
> constructive criticism.
>
Can you point out where I had negative comments and didn't give
constructive feedback?
The only reason any feedback was given was because it was requested by
Davis Hoover. My initial comment, which I still feel was valid, was that
the recommendation to use `git grep` was not a useful one due to the amount
of intimate knowledge required about OpenCPI to understand the output.
I was then given the reason for the abstraction, and how it solves certain
problems. I was also invited to supply feedback, which I feel I did
without being negative, identifying ideal solution scenarios for my use
cases, and providing links to examples I find useful that OpenCPI might be
able to adopt.
I want to see OpenCPI succeed, and I want to be able to use it. I don't
mean to be obtuse and I don't mean to be condescending. My intention for
the feedback was not to bash OpenCPI but to point out major deficiencies
from my point of view. If I did this in a way that was perceived as
negative, let me know where and I will try to correct future interactions.
Brian
>
Received on Mon Mar 15 2021 - 00:07:35 CDT