Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work

[Lance Albertson]

Patrick Lauer wrote:

>> was
>> suspended in the first place. You're taking every comment that's been
>> made against it as a personal attack and have been ignorant in *all* the
>> technical details.
> Well ... if the technical details are "it will cause the end of the
> world" it's hard to evaluate them to more than "random noise that can be
> ignored". I really don't see how such an overlay would cause more
> problems than providing the ebuilds unsorted, untested and without any
> QA checks in bugzilla (which is official hardware, eh?). If you had
> looked at sunrise recently you'd have noticed that those that work on it
> try to do their best and reach a quite high quality standard. So you get
> fixed, quality checked ebuilds, dev candidates and happy users.

If all you saw was a bunch of 'noise' then I'm afraid you're not seeing
the whole picture then. I admit there was *some* noise, but a good chunk
 of it had excellent technical details. I fail to see how your
assessment is factual until you prove to me exact technical points that
were viewed as 'end of the world noise'. If its that hard to evaluate,
then perhaps you should ask your peers on their opinions on the
technical details. It never hurts to get a second opinion on something
if you're unsure.

>> If you would open your eyes and mind a little you'll
>> see that there are better ways to making your project work better.
> I could say the same to you - there's always room for improvement.

I'm not the one making excuses about facts and calling it 'noise'
without proving it as such.

>> I
>> don't think continuing it on unofficial hardware without fixing the
>> details is the best idea.
> That's the only way to not have it die due to ressource starvation. Get
> the people to not work on it for 3 months and noone will remember that
> it even existed (which might be the goal of some)

What the heck does resource starvation have to do improving the project
idea and fixing it? Moving it and 'calling it good' isn't the same as
'lets stop this whole thing and look at all the points made by our
developers'. If you really think that the project will die in 3 months
because its not online, then perhaps you should reconsider the
scope/goal of the project. You can accomplish a lot if you work out the
RFC for the idea ahead of time. It would have solved all the issues
brought up in the last few weeks instead of this constant bickering and
childless recants. What hurt will happen if you halt the project for a
month or so to come up with a better idea? I'd say if we could come up
with a better solution that makes us all happy, lets do it.

>> You're just digging your hole deeper and not
>> fixing the issues we had in the first place. Please reconsider what
>> you're doing.
>
> I think the strong reactions from people like jakub (which now force
> the java overlay to do a stupid move just because otherwise they get
> problems with bugs!?) show that we have a strong disagreement here
> with one side responding to every demand and the other side just making
> more demands. But eh, I'm not even part of Sunrise, so I probably
> shouldn't even care.

You wouldn't have to deal with the 'demands' if you had come up with an
RFC in the first place and ironed out the details. Instead you've taken
a good chunk of everything mentioned as a wrong implementation and
decided that its noise and ignored it completely. Has the idea of "Hey,
a lot of people think we're doing this the wrong way. Maybe we should
stop the project, work out the details like we should have, and possibly
regain some trust within our developer community? Then after that, we
can open it back up again?" crossed your mind?

I fail to see the logic in this attempt of ignoring technical details.
If you don't know how to communicate well in a technical discussion,
just say it or look to your peers for help. There's no need in coming up
with these outlandish assumptions to make it look like you're trying to
contribute to the technical discussion. I have yet to see any of your
responses to show that you have any intentions on dealing with the
technical discussions. The more I see is you trying make a fight out of
this while my goal is to iron out the technical details before it goes live.

Yes, sometimes it takes a while to get that done, but doesn't it make
sense to do it right the *first* time than do deal with the crap you've
delt with in the last few weeks? This all could have been avoided if you
had written out an RFC and asked for comments on it *before hand*. Don't
you agree?

And please please please ... Keep your responses to a technical level
and don't bring in personal issues. I have tried to keep my reply with
that in mind. If you have personal issues with my reply, then please
reply to me in private as we don't need to have all of -dev seeing those
issues.

That is all :-)

-- 
Lance Albertson <ramereth@g.o>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager

---
GPG Public Key:  <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc>
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1  4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742

ramereth/irc.freenode.net