[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: failure to communicate

On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 19:09:04 +0200
Christian PERRIER <bubulle@debian.org> wrote:

> This mail is a very good argument to confirm that overcomplicated
> methods to make your point will just fail.
> If you have a point to make it, make ti. Once. With facts.

I supplied plenty of facts.




I even supplied patches, after I was invited to do so.


The first was justly criticised on the grounds that it contained a
bashism. I immediately corrected it.


It was stated that the time was not appropriate to introduce
user-visible changes in the installer. I pointed out that my patch did
not require any such thing, and that if it had been acceptable for the
installer to operate for many years, and many Debian releases, without
mentioning that it was using a definition of "megabytes" and "gigabytes"
contrary to what technically knowledgeable people would expect, it could
just as well operate in conformance with their expectations, and not
mention that either.

The only other objection raised was the danger of introducing
regressions. I supplied test scripts which demonstrated that my code
produced results which were byte-for-byte identical to the existing code
when operating in decimal mode, and offered to write tests for binary
mode if anybody could suggest what would be accepted as proof of


I was polite to everyone involved in the discussion, and answered every
question put to me.

Then I waited to see if anything would happen, or any further comment
would be made. For eight months.

> You will never convince anyone with a mail like yours.

If Debian bug report #684128 proves anything, it is that you will never
convince anyone with technical argument, facts advanced in support of
it, patches which completely solve the problem, test scripts which prove
non-regression of those patches, and answering every single question or
objection advanced regarding any of this.

All of that will be completely ignored, without further comment.

If you then attempt, as a last resort, to reason by way of analogy, this
message will be categorized as "spam" and disappear into thin air.

Perhaps there's some new and improved way of convincing people that I'm
just unaware of. If so, tutorial references would be appreciated.

> Sorry, but this is only about failure to communicate.

Well, that's certainly clear.

As I said, I've tried everything I can think of.

I'm out.

Reply to: