Happy to discuss over in that thread, but there are still some points we missed and need to learn from before we move on. I’ll follow up.
-- David Blevins http://twitter.com/dblevins http://www.tomitribe.com > On Jul 2, 2017, at 1:32 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > We already got this discussion on the thread you mentionned David and think > we ended up by recognizing some errors but only good wills from all parties. > > We also got from that some process enhancements I think we would need to > write down when any of us would have time. > > So not sure we need another thread about it. Let's get back on actual work > and try to lock the process yo avoid these ambiguities again. > > Le 1 juil. 2017 23:52, "David Blevins" <david.blev...@gmail.com> a écrit : > >> I think it would be fair to give Andy and Romain the first responses. >> >> - Andy, do you see anything you may have said or did in your exchange >> with Romain that you feel is not the Apache way? >> >> - Romain, do you see anything you may have said or did in your exchange >> with Andy that you feel is not the Apache way? >> >> >> -- >> David Blevins >> http://twitter.com/dblevins >> http://www.tomitribe.com >> >>> On Jul 1, 2017, at 1:53 PM, David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> I’ve gone through the commit@ and dev@ archives to piece together >> exactly what happened on the 27th. >>> >>> This type of conflict is disappointing and not the Apache Way. We need >> to shine a spotlight on and learn from these types of exchanges. >>> >>> We have some homework to do. Everyone read this exchange in detail and >> with an analytical mind: >>> >>> - Look for and label the mistakes made >>> - Focus on the behavior and not the people >>> - Sleep on it, review your list, then post >>> - Do not +1 people’s lists, post your own >>> >>> We will then have an open discussion on what is wrong with this >> exchange. To my analysis I see 7 distinct issues in the exchange. >>> >>> >>> Jun 27, 21:34 >>> AG> svn commit: r1800091 >>> >>> Jun 27, 21:41 >>> RM> svn commit: r1800092 (revert) >>> >>> Jun 27, 21:41 >>> [dev@ list] (Fwd: svn commit: r1800091) >>> RM> Please don't publish this, it breaks existing links which is >>> pby sthg we don't want to do now. Pinged Ivan about it >>> >>> Jun 27, 21:51 >>> AG> svn commit: r1800093 >>> >>> Jun 27, 21:56 >>> RM> svn commit: r1800094 (revert) >>> >>> Jun 27, 22:56 >>> [dev@ list] (Re: TomEE Documentation) >>> RM> PS - cause it appeared unobvious on jira: we should try to >>> keep current bookmarks as much as possible cause users already >>> complained we changed them and it is now "done" (= we dont get >>> complains anymore or very rarely) so i don't feel comfortable >>> breaking it again >>> >>> Jun 27, 22:12 >>> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078) >>> AG> Romain Manni-Bucau did you seriously just overwrite my commit? >>> >>> Jun 27, 22:13 >>> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078) >>> RM> yep, sent a mail on the list explaining why we can't accept >>> this patch as that when you committed (forwarding the commit mail >>> to dev@) + second commit pushed build temp files (target/) which >>> shouldnt be. >>> >>> Jun 27, 22:17 >>> AG> svn commit: r1800095 >>> >>> Jun 27, 22:18 >>> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078) >>> AG> You are simply unbelievable. >>> >>> Jun 27, 22:19 >>> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078) >>> AG> This ticket is in progress, and I was working on it. How dare >>> you! >>> >>> Jun 27, 22:20 >>> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078) >>> AG> What do you think the staging is for? >>> >>> Jun 27, 22:20 >>> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078) >>> RM> ...did you notice you broke bookmarks and messed up the repo? >>> dont think it is being unbelievable to fix it. Also pushing a >>> patch without reviewing it is not good too. >>> >>> Jun 27, 22:21 >>> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078) >>> AG> On what planet is this acceptable? >>> >>> Jun 27, 22:21 >>> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078) >>> AG> You are arrogant beyond belief! >>> >>> Jun 27, 22:22 >>> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078) >>> RM> probably the same planet where ignoring a list dicussion which >>> is not finished (website structure) is acceptable :D >>> >>> Jun 27, 22:22 >>> RM> svn commit: r1800097 (revert) >>> >>> Jun 27, 22:27 >>> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078) >>> AG> No Romain. This ticket was flagged, and with your usual >>> arrogance you just trash other peoples work. I was in the process >>> of reviewing it. Pushing to stage is perfectly valid. This is >>> simply not acceptable. >>> >>> Jun 27, 22:27 >>> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078) >>> AG> I will be escalating this incident. >>> >>> Jun 27, 22:29 >>> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078) >>> AG> Thanks Ivan - This is a nice improvement >>> >>> This went on for a while and then spilled over to this thread: >>> >>> "Suffocating development environment" >>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/1306bfc0bb78ef47517db6e3866bb7 >> 50a72458796f9895545dc39cd6@%3Cdev.tomee.apache.org%3E >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> David Blevins >>> http://twitter.com/dblevins >>> http://www.tomitribe.com >>> >> >>
