[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: gtk-devel
Subject: Re: migrating gtk
From: Alberto Ruiz <aruiz () gnome ! org>
Date: 2018-02-05 15:42:49
Message-ID: CACeDmPpW6rwn3cpad53HHg+u8-GDmn7oe-m7=n61jLHCWOBVww () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]
Hi everyone,
can we please stop the ad hominems and stick to constructive suggestions to
improve things please? this is becoming disgusting and is a poor display of
community dynamics
Thank you.
2018-02-05 16:36 GMT+01:00 Morten Welinder <mortenw@gnome.org>:
> > Your behaviour on this mailing list, and on Bugzilla, has been
> > consistently rude, inconsiderate, and plain abusive of the patience
> > and effort that volunteers put in the platform you're consuming.
>
> You have absolutely no respect for the work of other volunteers to the gtk+
> project or for people whose opinions aren't aligned with you. You put a
> high
> value on your own disruptive work, and a value of zero on anyone else.
>
> So, yeah, I don't like you. And you probably don't like me.
>
> Morten
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:15 AM, Emmanuele Bassi <ebassi@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5 February 2018 at 13:19, Morten Welinder <mortenw@gnome.org> wrote:
> >>> Considering that you usually stop short of the first step I have to
> >>> ask you: what kind of "busywork" have you ever experienced?
> >>
> >> Here's a sample:
> >> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=694627#c7
> >>
> >> Yes, that was you. What did you really gain from asking that
> >> question, other than verifying that I read my email?
> >
> > I gained the fact that you read your email and if you're still
> > experiencing the issue, or if it was accidentally fixed in the ~4
> > years between your original report and me going through the open bugs
> > of gobject-introspection. That's why it was marked as NEEDINFO.
> >
> > As soon as you replied, the bug was reinstated as NEW and will be
> > migrated to the gobject-introspection repository on gitlab.gnome.org.
> >
> >> The more typical sample -- not recently practiced by gtk+ -- is mass
> >> moving of bugs into NEEDINFO with a note saying something like
> >> "This bug was reported for version x.y. Please test if it still
> applies. If
> >> we get no response, this bug will be closed in 30 days."
> >
> > Which is what Matthias has said we're going to do in the email you
> > replied to — and it's also implied in the NEEDINFO state as it's used
> > by GNOME projects.
> >
> >> The reason I call that busywork is that you can actually do as asked
> >> only to repeat the whole thing in a year when no-one has looked at
> >> in the meantime. And repeat it a year after that. And multiply all
> that
> >> by the number of open bugs you have.
> >
> > Oh, I'm sorry you're *so* inconvenienced by volunteers trying to get
> > the bug count under control, and cannot replicate every single set up
> > from 5 years ago.
> >
> >> Quite frankly, the rational response to such periodic requests is to
> >> simply answer "the bug is still there" without going through the work
> >> of checking.
> >
> > So, you're basically just making shit up?
> >
> > That's *really* great to know, because now I won't feel compelled at
> > all to act on bug reports coming from you.
> >
> > Next time, either don't bother, or just be a decent human being, and
> > answer "I don't know".
> >
> >> That's rational for the bug reporter because it preserves
> >> the investment of time that was put into reporting the bug without
> >> spending more maintaining an large portfolio of open bugs.
> >
> > That's the "rational" thing to do if you're just abusing the ecosystem
> > you're taking advantage of.
> >
> > Again, that's a great thing to know.
> >
> >>> Of course it is, that's why we generally don't do that — except,
> >>> maybe, for rude bug reporters.
> >>
> >> You really don't like to be called out, do you? (And, yes, I know I am
> >> occasionally and deliberately rude. The email you responded to was
> >> not rude; it's just that you don't take criticism well, if at all.)
> >
> > Your behaviour on this mailing list, and on Bugzilla, has been
> > consistently rude, inconsiderate, and plain abusive of the patience
> > and effort that volunteers put in the platform you're consuming.
> >
> > You've been called out before, multiple times, about this.
> >
> > Of course, you can now spin it the way you want it, and say it's me
> > that doesn't like being called out. I'll just remember it for the next
> > time you open a bug, explaining what *I* have to do, without even
> > bothering to attach a patch. Or reply "this bug still exists" without
> > testing it, because you're too busy with your own stuff.
> >
> > Ciao,
> > Emmanuele.
> >
> >> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 5:37 AM, Emmanuele Bassi <ebassi@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>> On 4 February 2018 at 20:52, Morten Welinder <mortenw@gnome.org>
> wrote:
> >>>> As a general principle, you should only ask bug reporters to do work
> if you
> >>>> intend to do something with the answer. Or, with other words, it
> really is
> >>>> not nice to keep asking "is that bug still there?" until they get
> tired of the
> >>>> busywork and leave in disgust.
> >>>
> >>> The busywork meaning "attaching a patch and iterating over it"?
> >>> Considering that you usually stop short of the first step I have to
> >>> ask you: what kind of "busywork" have you ever experienced?
> >>>
> >>> Of course if we get a positive response that the bug is still there
> >>> we're going to migrate it and keep track of it.
> >>>
> >>>> With that in mind, I believe it is much nicer to just leave the old
> bugs there.
> >>>
> >>> The old bugs will be left there, but closed, so we don't need to check
> >>> two bug lists, and split the maintenance resources even more.
> >>>
> >>>> We never got around to solving the reporter's problem, but at least
> we did
> >>>> not add to the pain by asking them to do work and report back, only to
> >>>> ignore the result of that. Doing that is quite rude.
> >>>
> >>> Of course it is, that's why we generally don't do that — except,
> >>> maybe, for rude bug reporters.
> >>>
> >>> Ciao,
> >>> Emmanuele.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > https://www.bassi.io
> > [@] ebassi [@gmail.com]
> _______________________________________________
> gtk-devel-list mailing list
> gtk-devel-list@gnome.org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
>
--
Cheers,
Alberto Ruiz
[Attachment #5 (text/html)]
<div dir="ltr"><div>Hi everyone,<br><br>can we please stop the ad hominems and stick \
to constructive suggestions to improve things please? this is becoming disgusting and \
is a poor display of community dynamics<br><br></div>Thank you.<br></div><div \
class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2018-02-05 16:36 GMT+01:00 Morten \
Welinder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mortenw@gnome.org" \
target="_blank">mortenw@gnome.org</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" \
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span \
class="">> Your behaviour on this mailing list, and on Bugzilla, has been<br> > \
consistently rude, inconsiderate, and plain abusive of the patience<br> > and \
effort that volunteers put in the platform you're consuming.<br> <br>
</span>You have absolutely no respect for the work of other volunteers to the \
gtk+<br> project or for people whose opinions aren't aligned with you. You put \
a high<br> value on your own disruptive work, and a value of zero on anyone else.<br>
<br>
So, yeah, I don't like you. And you probably don't like me.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Morten<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:15 AM, Emmanuele Bassi <<a \
href="mailto:ebassi@gmail.com">ebassi@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br> > On 5 February \
2018 at 13:19, Morten Welinder <<a \
href="mailto:mortenw@gnome.org">mortenw@gnome.org</a>> wrote:<br> >>> \
Considering that you usually stop short of the first step I have to<br> >>> \
ask you: what kind of "busywork" have you ever experienced?<br> \
>><br> >> Here's a sample:<br>
>> <a href="https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=694627#c7" \
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://bugzilla.gnome.org/<wbr>show_bug.cgi?id=694627#c7</a><br>
>><br>
>> Yes, that was you. What did you really gain from asking that<br>
>> question, other than verifying that I read my email?<br>
><br>
> I gained the fact that you read your email and if you're still<br>
> experiencing the issue, or if it was accidentally fixed in the ~4<br>
> years between your original report and me going through the open bugs<br>
> of gobject-introspection. That's why it was marked as NEEDINFO.<br>
><br>
> As soon as you replied, the bug was reinstated as NEW and will be<br>
> migrated to the gobject-introspection repository on <a \
href="http://gitlab.gnome.org" rel="noreferrer" \
target="_blank">gitlab.gnome.org</a>.<br> ><br>
>> The more typical sample -- not recently practiced by gtk+ -- is mass<br>
>> moving of bugs into NEEDINFO with a note saying something like<br>
>> "This bug was reported for version x.y. Please test if it still \
applies. If<br> >> we get no response, this bug will be closed in 30 \
days."<br> ><br>
> Which is what Matthias has said we're going to do in the email you<br>
> replied to — and it's also implied in the NEEDINFO state as it's \
used<br> > by GNOME projects.<br>
><br>
>> The reason I call that busywork is that you can actually do as asked<br>
>> only to repeat the whole thing in a year when no-one has looked at<br>
>> in the meantime. And repeat it a year after that. And multiply all \
that<br> >> by the number of open bugs you have.<br>
><br>
> Oh, I'm sorry you're *so* inconvenienced by volunteers trying to get<br>
> the bug count under control, and cannot replicate every single set up<br>
> from 5 years ago.<br>
><br>
>> Quite frankly, the rational response to such periodic requests is to<br>
>> simply answer "the bug is still there" without going through the \
work<br> >> of checking.<br>
><br>
> So, you're basically just making shit up?<br>
><br>
> That's *really* great to know, because now I won't feel compelled at<br>
> all to act on bug reports coming from you.<br>
><br>
> Next time, either don't bother, or just be a decent human being, and<br>
> answer "I don't know".<br>
><br>
>> That's rational for the bug reporter because it preserves<br>
>> the investment of time that was put into reporting the bug without<br>
>> spending more maintaining an large portfolio of open bugs.<br>
><br>
> That's the "rational" thing to do if you're just abusing the \
ecosystem<br> > you're taking advantage of.<br>
><br>
> Again, that's a great thing to know.<br>
><br>
>>> Of course it is, that's why we generally don't do that — \
except,<br> >>> maybe, for rude bug reporters.<br>
>><br>
>> You really don't like to be called out, do you? (And, yes, I know I \
am<br> >> occasionally and deliberately rude. The email you responded to \
was<br> >> not rude; it's just that you don't take criticism well, if \
at all.)<br> ><br>
> Your behaviour on this mailing list, and on Bugzilla, has been<br>
> consistently rude, inconsiderate, and plain abusive of the patience<br>
> and effort that volunteers put in the platform you're consuming.<br>
><br>
> You've been called out before, multiple times, about this.<br>
><br>
> Of course, you can now spin it the way you want it, and say it's me<br>
> that doesn't like being called out. I'll just remember it for the \
next<br> > time you open a bug, explaining what *I* have to do, without even<br>
> bothering to attach a patch. Or reply "this bug still exists" \
without<br> > testing it, because you're too busy with your own stuff.<br>
><br>
> Ciao,<br>
> Emmanuele.<br>
><br>
>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 5:37 AM, Emmanuele Bassi <<a \
href="mailto:ebassi@gmail.com">ebassi@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br> >>> On 4 \
February 2018 at 20:52, Morten Welinder <<a \
href="mailto:mortenw@gnome.org">mortenw@gnome.org</a>> wrote:<br> >>>> \
As a general principle, you should only ask bug reporters to do work if you<br> \
>>>> intend to do something with the answer. Or, with other words, it \
really is<br> >>>> not nice to keep asking "is that bug still \
there?" until they get tired of the<br> >>>> busywork and leave in \
disgust.<br> >>><br>
>>> The busywork meaning "attaching a patch and iterating over \
it"?<br> >>> Considering that you usually stop short of the first step \
I have to<br> >>> ask you: what kind of "busywork" have you ever \
experienced?<br> >>><br>
>>> Of course if we get a positive response that the bug is still there<br>
>>> we're going to migrate it and keep track of it.<br>
>>><br>
>>>> With that in mind, I believe it is much nicer to just leave the old \
bugs there.<br> >>><br>
>>> The old bugs will be left there, but closed, so we don't need to \
check<br> >>> two bug lists, and split the maintenance resources even \
more.<br> >>><br>
>>>> We never got around to solving the reporter's problem, but at \
least we did<br> >>>> not add to the pain by asking them to do work and \
report back, only to<br> >>>> ignore the result of that. Doing that is \
quite rude.<br> >>><br>
>>> Of course it is, that's why we generally don't do that — \
except,<br> >>> maybe, for rude bug reporters.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Ciao,<br>
>>> Emmanuele.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> <a href="https://www.bassi.io" rel="noreferrer" \
target="_blank">https://www.bassi.io</a><br> > [@] ebassi [@<a \
href="http://gmail.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">gmail.com</a>]<br> \
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br> gtk-devel-list mailing \
list<br> <a href="mailto:gtk-devel-list@gnome.org">gtk-devel-list@gnome.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list" rel="noreferrer" \
target="_blank">https://mail.gnome.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-<wbr>list</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div \
class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Cheers,<br>Alberto \
Ruiz</div> </div>
_______________________________________________
gtk-devel-list mailing list
gtk-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic