1 |
On 17-09-2010 17:33, Alex Alexander wrote: |
2 |
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 03:52:03PM +0100, Markos Chandras wrote: |
3 |
>> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 12:51:52PM +0200, Maciej Mrozowski wrote: |
4 |
>>> On Friday 17 of September 2010 12:41:51 Angelo Arrifano wrote: |
5 |
>>>> Every single QA commit review coming into my Inbox during the past week |
6 |
>>>> was directed to arfrever. I *know* he is on probation, I *know* he made |
7 |
>>>> mistakes - in fact every one makes mistakes. But you guys are hammering |
8 |
>>>> all over him for picky stuff. |
9 |
>>>> |
10 |
>>>> Remind you that while it is a pleasure to be member of Gentoo, we are |
11 |
>>>> not your slaves; we chose to spend our free time contributing to Gentoo |
12 |
>>>> for several reasons - fun, knowledge and team work. Satisfying somebody |
13 |
>>>> else's flavors and wishes is certainly *not* one of them. |
14 |
>>>> |
15 |
>>>> I never had the chance to talk with arfrever, nor I ever looked to his |
16 |
>>>> work at Gentoo. But there is one thing I definitely got right, he has a |
17 |
>>>> lot of motivation to continue in Gentoo and *offer* his time and |
18 |
>>>> knowledge, otherwise he would just raise the middle finger and go away |
19 |
>>>> after all of this bashing. |
20 |
>>> |
21 |
>>> The other important thing is such "lecturing" should probably take place in |
22 |
>>> private, like gentoo-core. |
23 |
>>> |
24 |
>>> -- |
25 |
>>> regards |
26 |
>>> MM |
27 |
>> |
28 |
>> Well, Angelo is quite right for posting in this ML because QA members |
29 |
>> wants anything to be publicly visible. Angelo, I do agree with you. It |
30 |
>> seems like everyone is forcing himself to find mistakes on Arfrevers |
31 |
>> commits even the slightest one. Whilst I do agree that pointing the |
32 |
>> mistakes is a good thing, however I am totally against targeting one |
33 |
>> person just to satisfy our ego. So I you spot a commit mistake and |
34 |
>> report it via the ML make sure you do it again when someone != Arfrever |
35 |
>> do it in the future. |
36 |
>> |
37 |
>> Bye |
38 |
>> |
39 |
>> -- |
40 |
>> Markos Chandras (hwoarang) |
41 |
>> Gentoo Linux Developer |
42 |
>> Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org |
43 |
>> Key ID: 441AC410 |
44 |
>> Key FP: AAD0 8591 E3CD 445D 6411 3477 F7F7 1E8E 441A C410 |
45 |
> |
46 |
> I don't think ego has anything to do with this. Arfrever brought this on |
47 |
> himself. His [multiple] past mistakes and lack of cooperation are |
48 |
> forcing the other devs to screen all his commits now, to make sure |
49 |
> history doesn't repeat itself. |
50 |
|
51 |
«forcing other devs to screen all his commits now» - like torture and |
52 |
pay-back? |
53 |
|
54 |
That's exactly what I feel it is entirely wrong. It just makes Gentoo |
55 |
look bad. |
56 |
|
57 |
Anyway, I think QA should keep their commit acceptability threshold in |
58 |
the same level for everyone. Of course this is easier to say than to do, |
59 |
we are humans after all, and feelings are always involved. |
60 |
Usually, personal interference is avoided by making the review process |
61 |
blind. That is, the person that commits would remain anonymous during |
62 |
the QA review process, but this is hard to apply in practice. |
63 |
|
64 |
Regards, |
65 |
- Angelo |
66 |
> |
67 |
> Angelo, while I agree with your general thoughts on why everyone is |
68 |
> contributing, I believe you should have gathered more intel before |
69 |
> sending an email like this. We do respect Arfrever's motivation, we just |
70 |
> need to make sure it translates to good, trustworthy work. If we didn't, |
71 |
> his request to return to Gentoo would have been denied. |
72 |
> |
73 |
> Regards, |