See below
On 05.05.2017 14:20, Zieris, Franz wrote: > Franz asked: > >> Sounds like something bigger (?) that should have been discussed on the >> mailing list. >> >> @Stefan, @Tobias: Could you spare a few words on this? > Stefan (forgetting to include dpp-devel in CC) answered: > >> http://saros-build.imp.fu-berlin.de/gerrit/#/c/3314/ > > For further reference, I copy the discussion from there: > (new content follows below the ===== line) > > Stefan wrote: > >> Just FYI. I am starting to integrate some parts of your big patch. >> It is not the original code. As I already stated, we do not need >> Unbound stuff if we are working with paths instead of virtual file >> objects. > Tobias wrote: > >> I don't want to sound ungrateful (as I currently am somewhat low on >> time and therefore appreciate your efforts to integrate my patch), >> but this patch has somewhat put me in an awkward position. >> >> Firstly, it is kind of harsh to work on something for multiple weeks >> and then only see a tiny sliver of it make it into your integration >> (I am aware that this is a very streamlined version throwing out all >> the unneeded code written for future expandability; these were >> written before the prototype nature of the current implementation >> was made clear to me). I know this is more of a personal problem, >> but I hope you can see where I am coming from. >> >> Secondly (and more importantly), this somewhat complicates my further >> work as I am still set on fixing the functionality concerning the >> change of the session scope (SharedResorucesManger and >> FileSystemChangeListener). >> What am I supposed to base these fixes on? I have no frame of >> reference how long the integration is going to take and when it >> will be at a testable point. >> Should I just base it on my original big patch? And how am I >> supposed to push it in that case? >> >> Furthermore, I would like to do the integration work myself in the >> future as it is part of the work (and learning) experience and I am >> the one who is going to work with it afterwards, which is much >> easier if I have written and integrated the code myself. >> >> As I already said, I appreciate your work, especially since the >> scope of the patch got way out of hand and I am running low on >> time. I hope that all of this will work more smoothly in the future. >> >> I also don't know how I should proceed with the big patch. Should >> I still push the last patchset with the small changes I already noted? >> Should I complete the classes written in this patch? What was your >> thinking on how this is supposed to proceed? Are you going to do the >> entire integration and re-re-implementation yourself? > Stefan wrote: > >> Well, just look at the patches (the abandoned one) containing my name. >> Sometimes Franz already revert some of my features. It is >> frustrating but you have to deal with it. >> >> But I already told you that you do not need Unbound resources if >> you are working with paths instead of virtual files. >> >> Just because someone writes a big bunch of code does not give >> him/her the rights to insist that the code gets committed. >> >> As for the bug fixing stuff, just do it in your big patch. >> >> The splitting after you are finished shouldn't be that hard, >> believe me. It is basically a just renaming stuff after the V2 >> files are ready. > ===================================================================== > > Here is what I take from this: > * Tobias worked on the IntelliJ filesystem quite some time, discussing > his patches with Stefan. > * Stefan created an alternative implementation without discussing it with > Tobias, and without proposing a procedure on how to integrate the efforts. I did not create an "alternative implementation". I already told Tobias that those Bound/Unbound approach is not needed if the "delegating" object is an IPATH and not a VIRTUALFILE. So I just dropped the Unbound classes and dropped some code that is not needed but is currently present in IntelliJ because it it present in the interfaces (just because IntelliJ needs it .... ) > * Tobias complained about this, asking on how to proceed. > * Stefan did not answer with a proposal on how to proceed, but seems to have > something in mind ("after the V2 files are ready") > > OK, Stefan, here's is your chance: What do you propose? > Please share your conception on how to proceed in this manner. I already told Tobias just to continue his stuff. You can then integrate this stuff. Take this V2 versions as a "polished" version of this overhaul. Tobias patch can be reviewed since 19th April. You do not have written a single comment since then regarding his patch. > On a different note: It sounds like you, Stefan, are in for "egoless > programming", but at the same time, you seem to hold some grudge against > me for "reverting some of your features". > I honestly have no idea what you're referring to. > The last time I git-reverted one of your commits was in 2012 [1,2]. > In terms of Gerrit patches [3], I stopped looking when I reached 2014: I do not get your point. I have no grudge against you. Maybe I was a little bit p**** for several hours, that's all. > I did not abandon any of your patches. I never said that. I said: just look how many LOCS I have thrown away by myself a.k.a just because I have written a bunch of code does not mean it was a good approach etc. to do it that way. > So: What's the matter here? > > Franz > > [1] git log --author=zieris --grep=Revert" > [2] https://github.com/saros-project/saros/commit/a6ae0ef3567f > [3] > http://saros-build.imp.fu-berlin.de/gerrit/#/q/owner:srossbach%2540arcor.de+status:abandoned ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ DPP-Devel mailing list DPP-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dpp-devel
