[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       koffice-devel
Subject:    Re: koffice/libs/kotext/styles
From:       Thomas Zander <zander () kde ! org>
Date:       2010-07-14 19:29:30
Message-ID: 201007142129.33167.zander () kde ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wednesday 14. July 2010 20.46.03 Cyrille Berger wrote:
> I tried to read the review request. And to be honest, I didn't understand
> what was the objection ? 

*sigh* ok, this is something between annoying and embarrassing.
I wrote 4 comments on the reviewboard all inline, and I just found that only 
one was actually send out by email. :( :(

I never found this out because after writing in a second review;
 "Naturally, the point of moving the 10 now in the list style to the 
  loading code still stands :)"
I got a comment indicating this line made sense to sebastian, which is 
confusing as the actual point referred to seems to never had reached his 
inbox :(

> Is it just about the comment, or is there
> something else ? (the commit message seems to indicate otherwise, but
> honestly the review board discussion does not).

Seems it doesn't add the initial objection; which I did repeat later in more 
detail;
  «Indent and list level are totally separate properties and they should not
   have any implied relationship.»

The committing without a "ship it" and being hard to communicate with when I 
made my objection clear after that commit still makes me feel this is not the 
way we want to work and in violation of the review-board rules.

> Also, reverting a patch without prior discussion is kind of rude, as is
> committing before the end of the review. Or was there IRC discussions ?

The revert is the direct result of me first writing;
  «I disagree, there are principal problems with it, I tried to make that 
   clear on the 2 reviews I posted.»
and the reply from Sebastian which used words like "pissing contest" and 
"should I really care". This is not the way we should work in KOffice.

The review-board rules state you need a 'ship it', so while my initial 
objection seems to be lost this could have been corrected with minimal 
confusion would this rule be followed and also we would have avoided the ping-
pong commits.

The commit also had the immediate effect that sebastian now tries to put the 
burden of proof that his fix is incorrect with me. Which makes the job of 
reviewing his patch too much work. As the author and maintainer of that code 
the request to prove to sebastian that his reading of the code is not correct 
makes me feel quite unpleasant.

So, to restore balance I think we should go back to the way it was before the 
review request was posted and this implies reverting the commit. Then get to a 
constructive way of working. 
-- 
Thomas Zander
_______________________________________________
koffice-devel mailing list
koffice-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice-devel

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]