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

List:       koffice-devel
Subject:    Re: koffice/libs/kotext/styles
From:       Sebastian Sauer <mail () dipe ! org>
Date:       2010-08-08 16:22:25
Message-ID: 201008081822.25436.mail () dipe ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

Thomas Zander wrote:
> On Sunday 8. August 2010 04.33.55 Sebastian Sauer wrote:
>> . No review-request, no
>> discussion, no IRC ping, no mail, no word and as usual hidden inside is a
>> revert. A classic regression by aggression.
> 
> I don't agree with you here; there is not an agressive revert

Your "fix" is nothing then a revert. You just reopened bug 243795 even if 
there where tons of alternates as you may see with the commit that followed 
that one. Those alternate solution was on review-board too btw but got exactly 
1:1 the same "No, I don't like" voice from you like all of the other 
alternates.

> This
> you didn't take for many iterations and just committed anyway.

Right, the timeline says that the patch was added to review-board on 06 July 
2010 what was over a month ago. Then you raised your voice without providing 
details that could have helped to address whatever was wrong with the patch. I 
then provided more then half a dozend of patches which all are solving the 
problem (bug 243795) in different ways with the hope to at least see some kind 
of logic behind your disagreement. But none of the patches I provided did made 
a difference. In fact you answered to *ALL* of them with the exact same 
sentence. After I lost more then a week the wmc (wisemen council) was called 
by me on 13 July 2010. Even they asked you to provide *technical* details why 
you object. You didn't for a whole week and then went to holidays, came back 
and revert the chosen solution stating that you fixed a bug that in fact is a 
revert and reopens bugs? You did not provide a bug-number where we could have 
maybe got an idea what the actual problem is in the first place, you didn't 
asked for a review even if the commit was in libs and review-board rules 
demand *anyone* to review non-trivial patches and you still did not provided 
any details.

> It is not helpful to tell me I am violating reviewboard rules when you are
> the one that committed with an open objection to your solution. The rules
> are there to work together and get consensus. They explicitly say you
> don't commit something when there is an objection to it.

from http://wiki.koffice.org/index.php?title=Review_board_rules ;

We added following little sentence just for you;
"If you point out a problem, also try to point to a possible solution."

*Now* is the perfect time you take a few minutes and do what you got asked for 
since over a month now. Maybe that helps to finally progress.

> Looking at the commits mailing list after writing this email I notice that
> Sebastian reverted my fix last night

You are really unbelievable. Look again and notice that I committed a solution 
that a) fixes bug #243795 and b) passes your little unittests (through I do 
not agree with what they test but that's explained at the reviewboard already 
and we can just exclude that point if it helps to progress). What you did was 
to introduce a regression what shows why you need to get your patches reviewed 
(what you again did not even after everybody on this mailinglist asked you 
already a few times). So, you reopened a fixed issue where you *know* (by 
looking at the review-board) that there are at least half a dozend other ways. 
But you just commit a revert and then you wonder that I revert your revert? 
And now you are telling me *I* do break the rules? Note that I only reverted 
reverts you did. I only, without any exception, reverted where you revert code 
committed by someone else for a good reason. If reverts are the only way to 
work with you, then that way.
_______________________________________________
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]