On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 3:14 AM, janI <j...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi > > I have now read this thread twice, and see a to me well known pattern. >
But have you read the history of the BZ issue? > @pedro, I do agree with rob, that you might have choosen your comment more > wisely, that said you are the expert on the subject, so if you change the > status to "WONTFIX" it is a complely correct action. The issue is still > seachable in the database, but you signal to everybody this will not be > fixed (some day in future, somebody might solve a similar issue). I do > exactly the same with the fields (mwiki) where I feel confident, and only > asks for others opinion if I am in doubt. > 1. No one in their right mind searches for issues marked "WONTFIX". That is where we hide issues that no one should work on. For example, if some functionality is odd but it is needed for standards compatibility or for backwards compatibility we mark it WONTFIX to signify that the issue is real but there are important reasons why the functionality cannot be changed. It does not mean that Committer X will not fix it. Remember, the issue was entered with an explicit statement that Pedro was not going to work on it. So it is incorrect to say that the issue is in any sense findable once it is marked WONTFIX. > I hope you will reconsider, this list and community is not (yet) completely > dominated by the opinion of any single person, but if everybody withdraws > when being lectured, it soon will be. We badly need motivated, critical > members. > > @rob, please dont misunderstand me, I respect you for the awfull amount of > positive work you do for AOO, but I hope you will consider (no need to > reply to my mail just in private), which of the following 2 options you > think are the better option for our community: > > a) we allow bullying/lecturing our fellow committers, causing the committer > to withdraw and the community in praxis looses a motivated committer. > > b) we accept the expert choise of our fellow committers, even though we > personally might not agree, and keep a motivated committer that works > actively. > If you the BZ history you would have seen that I reopened the BZ after Pedro closed it, and I gave a detailed justification why. Pedro then immediately re-closed it. Where is my expert opinion considered here? Remember, I am the one who set up the "easy fixes' mechanism in BZ so new coders have some tasks to work on. So that task depends on curating a set of BZ issues that are meaningful but no one was working on. In my expert opinion this could be one such task. So why are you denying me my opinion? Pedro's concerns can easily be met by adding an informative comment. Mine cannot be met in any way by burying the issue as "Won't Fix" As soon as it was evident that Pedro was engaging in an editing war in BZ I brought the issue here to the dev list. That was the proper thing to do. > I have no doubt that I prefer b), it really doesnt matter if a database > field is set to WONTFIX, it stayes searchable, compared to having somone > actively working on making AOO a better product and community. > Is this really and either/or thing? > During my time in AOO, we have added 3 committers and by using a) and 2 > have at least reduced their work heavely. > > I do believe we all try to do our best in our own way, but lets please use > the energy to make a better product, not to fight each other. > So are you saying that closing BZ issues with the sole comment "There seems to be little interest in this" is "actively working on making AOO a better product and community?" Really? What about someone who then reopens the issue because it is a legitimate issue that could be a good candidate for a new coder? Is that then, in your book, working against the community? And then what about the person who immediately re-closes the issue without discussion? Regards, -Rob > this just being my 2cent. > > Jan I. > > > > On 7 May 2013 04:48, Pedro Giffuni <p...@apache.org> wrote: > >> >> >> I don't have time for this if you really want to keep open a BZ issue for >> a feature >> no one is working on, I am OK with that. >> >> I will try to avoid updating the state of my bug reports from now on to >> avoid >> these threads that you seem to like so much. >> >> Pedro. >> >> >> ----- Messaggio originale ----- >> > Da: Rob Weir >> >> > >> > On May 6, 2013, at 8:03 PM, Pedro Giffuni <p...@apache.org> wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Messaggio originale ----- >> >>> Da: Rob Weir >> >> ... >> >>> The fact that you wrote the issue initially is not relevant to whether >> >>> the issue is marked "won't fix" or not. That field is >> > not for >> >>> entering your personal opinion. It is for expressing the project's >> >>> consensus for how the issue is handled. Of course, you are welcome to >> >>> enter your personal opinion as a comment. >> >> >> >> It is my personal and technical opinion that it should be labelled WONT >> >> FIX. If your expert opinion is different I encourage you to grab the >> issue >> >> and *then* reopen it. If the project is really lucky you can even >> prove me >> >> wrong ;) >> >> >> > >> > Then I invite you to provide a technical explanation for this rather >> > than the "it seems that no one is interested in this" comment that you >> > gave when you closed the issue. You must agree that this was not a >> > technical reason. Nor was it one when you said you closed it because >> > you didn't want to receive notifications about it, nor was it a >> > technical justification when you said you didn't want someone to >> > accidentally commit it, nor when you suggested that you were >> > withdrawing permission to use the patch. After spending much time >> > reading your comments I still have no clue what exactly your technical >> > concerns are. >> > >> > As you wrote initially in the issue, this is only a prototype. I think >> > it is clear that it was not finished work. I don't think someone would >> > accidentally commit it as-is. But if you think additional caveats are >> > warranted then please add them as comments to the issue. That's where >> > they belong. That's where they will do the most good. But if the >> > reason for the issue remains valid, i.e., that Boost has faster stats >> > code than what we have now, then the issue itself should remain open. >> > >> > Of course if you were in error in your earlier analysis, and Boost is >> > not faster then by all means give that explanation and mark the issue >> > as INVALID. But please don't give a comment of "no one seems >> > interested" and then starting deleting stuff. What we have in BZ is >> > an important record of issues and opportunities in the code and >> > marking something "Won't Fix" when the underlying issue is still >> > valid >> > is not right. >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > Rob >> > >> > >> >>> >> >>>> I guess will only comment on the withdrawn patch: >> >>>> >> >>>> The withdrawal doesn't have anything to do with how long the >> >>>> patch has been available, I just don't think it should be >> >>>> committed by accident. >> >>>> >> >>>> Last time I knew, the ASF policy is not to take anything that the >> >>>> >> >>>> author (me in this case) doesn't want taken so I expect if >> > someone >> >>>> wants it he/she can ask me about it and I may even give one or two >> >>>> new hints about it :). >> >>> >> >>> This is true for non-committers. But committers have submitted an >> >>> ICLA and have already promised, in writing, that when they offer >> >>> patches that the ASF has permission to use the code. I'd recommend >> >>> thinking carefully about reneging on that promise. If your issue is >> >>> only whether someone commits your patch without review then I >> >>> recommend that you explain that in a comment to the issue. >> >> >> >> The icla applies to my contributions to the project and it is perfectly >> >> valid since the moment I signed it, that hasn't changed. >> >> >> >> Do keep in mind that if I had thought it was a good idea to commit >> >> the patch I would have just done it, like I did with so many patches >> >> before. >> >> >> >> After thinking about it for a while I think I was right not to commit >> it >> >> in the first place. I still think the issue should be labelled WONT >> FIX. >> >> >> >> The patch is withdrawn for good reasons but if you want to spend time >> >> on it be my guest, and yes the project has permission to use my patch >> >> under ALv2. >> >> >> >> Pedro. >> >> >> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
