Re: Bug#394971: [powerpc64] load the fan control modules
On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 01:42:48PM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
>
> > On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 10:38:04AM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> >> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
> >>
> >> >> Neither of I or Frans said that it need to be done until today or
> >> >> tomorrow. We just asked for the fix.
> >> >>
> >> >> You misunderstand it as I was forcing you to fix it ASAP and it's not
> >> >> true.
> >> >
> >> > Well, you sure where putting lot of pressure on me, and indirectly implying
> >> > that i was not doing it right because i had not yet provided the fix.
> >>
> >> No. I said that wasn't right you say that I or anyother are supposed
> >> to fix problems in your or anyother patches before it gets included on
> >> d-i itself. I hadn't say that you're suppose to do that in one day or
> >> two. I just asked you to do so.
> >
> > Repeteadly, while i had told you i would do on WE. And then you said if i
> > don't fix it you would commit it with a message implying i was not willing to
> > fix it myself, and finally commited it yesterday.
>
> I did it 'cause you suggested that I or anyother could fix it. So I
Well you can hardly deny that the patches where so trivial that you could
easily enough have fixed them, or frans for that matter.
I did indeed tell so, you could have fixed them.
I never did say that i would not fix them though, and you where most
insistent.
So, i guess we can attribute this to another communication problem, and let's
go forward, the fixed package is in the archive, and everyone should be happy.
> did. Please next time say: I'll do it and send a fixed patch for
> you. So I'll wait for you.
Possibly, but this again shows why Frans should allow the commit rights back.
This second-guessing of patches, and the whole issue means a bigger chance of
anger going in and miscommunication, and don't blind yourself, i am angered at
the current situation, and it serves *NO* purpose, except humiliating me, at
least no purpose i was ever told, nor anyone i could guess.
So, imagine these two work flows :
Case A, as it should be :
1) I find a bug in a package, or notice a bug report.
2) I investigate and commit it to the svn repo.
3) Either the patch is on a package where i am the resident expert, i test
it and upload the package if the current freeze status allow it.
4) Or it is not, i leave the fix commited, and after some time i ping frans
or one of the uploaders for an upload.
5) If i make an error in 3), or someone else makes an error in 4), or don't
notice a problem with my patch in 4), once it is noticed, i fix it, discuss
the issue with folks more knowledgeable with me, and we go back to 2).
Case B, as it currently is :
1) I find a bug in a package, or notice a bug report.
2) I investigate, test the fix, and commit it to a bug report.
3) Some time passes, i bug frans, who is busy and doesn't have time.
4) More time passes, i bug folk on #debian-boot irc, mmm wait, i am banned
from there.
5) Instead of telling me about a problem in the package, the bug report gets
ignored.
6) As i see an upload happening who could as well have included my patch, i
lose patience, as speaking with folk who tell me to "FUCK YOU" is not really
very motivating, i just make the upload, as is my right to do.
7) Frans notices, feels angered, decides to revert the patch without telling
me.
8) I notice, feel angered, post to debian-boot unhappy message against
frans.
9) Frans starts looking at my patches, he is little familiar with the area i
work on, so he makes clue-less comments which if followed on will break the
changes, the dispute with me undoubtly increases his willingness to find
reproach in my patches.
10) I feel angered and so things escalate as each other gets more angered,
lot of time is lost, instead of doing productive work, everyone has a bad
feeling, the issue becomes a mess.
You see clearly which of the cases is the better one, both technically, as it
allows to do more work in the given time, and socially, as it allows the past
differences to be smoothed and forgotten over time, and everyone to be happy
forever after.
Now, you also see that in the current situation this is not the case, that by
its very nature, it will mean more time is lost that could have been used for
productive work, and un-balance and consequent un-fairness of the situation,
create a climate of angry-ness and bad feeling, which will never be smoothed,
and which will last forever until one of the party breaks. This is the kind of
situation which is the stuff for drama-novels, and a few centuries ago, would
have led to duels and stuff.
Do we really want this. If you want to help in this matter, speak about this
current situation with members of the d-i team, maybe not frans or joeyh
directly, but with other members of the team, with Christian, with others.
I don't know what Frans told you, nor what he told others, he never came
forward and spoke to me honestly about the problem, and at the same time he
holds the full power over this issue, so whatever solution cannot come from
me, but only from him, and past experience has shown that he cannot take the
decision to go from highly conflictive case B to solution solving case A. So
the only hope to solve this to the best interest of debian and everyone
involved is to get someone external to intervene and mediate, but Anthony, who
with his DPL hat on, was the most natural person to intervene here, failed to
see the consequence of the situation he helped set up, and the TC doesn't want
to get involved, so what is left to me ?
I was perfectly happy to let things stand until a face-to-face meeting at
fosdem, but i need at least a gesture of good faith, which with "FUCK YOU"
kind of replies i have not been seeing, and thus fear that a face-to-face
meeting will not solve the issue, but instead has a high chance of basculating
from mere online inconvenience, into the kind of drama novels are made of.
As thus, to all involved, and to Anthony as DPL, There is *NO WAY* a situation
as messy as this can be solved by draging it on-and-on, not without completely
destroying one of the parties.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: