[CP2K:14] Re: status NMR shifts with cp2k

Teodoro Laino teodor... at gmail.com
Sun Apr 29 07:36:48 CEST 2007


Ciao Axel,
vey quickly.. I'm in the airport and I'm paying each bite I'm sending  
over the network.. ;-)
What about writing a petition for free internet all over the  
world? ;-) LOL
So I will be very short..
>
> my input didn't work (no big deal, it has happened before), but now
> i was just wondering: did i make a mistake in the input or is the
> keyword silently ignored.
>
It is very probably silently ignored..
>
> i wasn't asking this of you or juerg. i would hope that the person
> working on the module in question, reads this message and will
> consider it on his/her on accord. that is what i would expect from
> a responsable developer. as it is not me who is paying her/him to
> do this kind of work, i have no authority to demand this, and - as
> with any suggestions - people are free to ignore them.
>
This is exactly what I ask all the time .. and this is the main  
reason why I forwarded your message
to the developer mailing list.

> why is it, that constructive criticism on cp2k is so frequently
> interpreted as an attack.
Absolutely.. as you can see it was only me to answer your message and  
I didn't consider it as an attack..
and everything I said were only my personal opinions..
In general I think is very easy just to complain about not working  
things that's why I was trying to be a little
bit more constructive..

>
> please note, that i am not asking to rewrite cp2k in C++,
> but i oppose that the size of the code is used as an argument
> to defend careless programming. the goal of cp2k must not
> be reaching a million lines of code as soon as possible, but
> consolidating the functionality and trying to get _rid_ of any
> excess baggage.
Agree 100% .. and there's an effort in that direction.. but most of  
the time this looks more
like a fight between developers.. I would like to forward you a  
couple of e-mail of several
months ago.. when I was trying to get rid of old part of codes..  
undocumented.. useless..
I got several e-mails of people seriously angry..
To many of them it was clear that we needed a documentation (regtests  
whatever) for
those functionalities.. and many worked for that.. to others the  
argument was of zero
relevance. And it took 1 year to delete that part of code.. and I did  
mostly in a very anarchic
way (though I'm not proud of this at all)..

> as you know, i am perfectly capable of producing such a patch,
> but you also know of how well most of my previous contributions
> were regarded amongst (some of) the cp2k developers. also, _this_
> is the kind of change that is easiest done by the person who already
> _knows_ the code in question.
you also know that I had no serious problem to apply patches that you  
provided..
in few cases, when there was a more cp2k consistent way  of doing  
that, I just got the idea
and preserved the style (see all the psf and filenames length)  
committing everything as if
it would be your patch..

>
> yes. but why should _i_ spend hours to figure out where to place
> this reminder and how to do it before i know whether this would
> be regarded as suitable at all? hence my suggestion. and i would
> have been ok with a response of the kind 'yes, we can add it, if
> you write it, and BTW there is a function XXXX that can help you'.
>
Well this is exactly what I wrote.. There's a function.. you can  
provide a patch blocking the program
using the already implemented function.. and I will add it to the  
repository..
There was no other hidden meaning in my message.. believe me..

>
> i would appreciate it, if you could forward the reply as well,
> so that people get both views.
>
No problem.. but I didn't receive any comment about that.. if I  
should.. it will be forward to you.. no worries..

cheers
teo

p.s.: got out of my bite credits.. ;-)



More information about the CP2K-user mailing list