On 05.05.2017 15:12, Zieris, Franz wrote: > Franz wrote: > >> OK, Stefan, here's is your chance: What do you propose? >> Please share your conception on how to proceed in this manner. > Stefan wrote: > >> 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. > > I'm sorry, but I have no clue what this means. His version: bound/unbound IResources, my modification of his current work = no need to distinguish between unbound/bound resources.
So switching from his overhaul to the polished overhaul (which is not even finished yet) is just a a renaming. Of course he does not need to do that. I can do that. To say it again, these V2 version are not my versions. It is basically the work of Tobias with just a small modifications. > @Tobias: Do you know how to "just continue your stuff"? > > "You can then integrate this stuff" -- > who is "you", > what does "integrate" mean here (usually it's: 'push a patch, > work on your reviewer's comments, eventually submit the patch'), > and what precisely is "this stuff"? > It is the integration of this patch: http://saros-build.imp.fu-berlin.de/gerrit/#/c/3310/3 Feel free to give an good advice on how to split it, or: if you do not have any concerns we can just commit this big patch. > Stefan wrote: > >> Tobias patch can be reviewed since 19th April. You do >> not have written a single comment since then regarding his patch. > That is not helpful. > I don't see how this line of argument brings us any closer to finding > a way to clean up the filesystem "stuff". > (For what's it worth: I do not review patches that do not pass the CI, > unless I have a good reason to do so, e.g. being directly asked by > the patch author.) > After all: This is a communication issue between you and Tobias. Tobias already mentioned that he has problems to fix the test cases. The patch itself compiles. So my idea is (with anything said above). Add IResource/IFile/IFolder (bound and unbound). Add anything else which should be mainly the resource handling stuff in the SharedResourceManager, FilesystemChangeListener. The modifications need to setup the module stuff (e.g selecting them for sharing on the host side and creating / selecting them on the receiving side). But I have my doubts that this patch can be split in a good way because the whole new implementation of Tobias replaces the old filesystem and therefore the modifications of other parts (SharedResourceManager etc.) have to be present as well. Again the V2 versions are just the cleanup. They still rely on the complete overhaul and cannot be integrated anyway until the overhaul is committed (unless I enjoy debugging things twice which I do not). TLDR: just ignore the V2 versions, focus on Tobias modifications. > > Stefan wrote: > >> I do not get your point. I have no grudge against you. > I was referring to this quote of yours: > >> 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. > As frustration is counterproductive, I wanted to know what's going here. > > > Stefan wrote: > >> 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. > True. > But it's a completely different type of frustration to throw away one's > own work compared to waking up and seeing one's work being invalidated or > at least being put into a position where the next steps are less than clear > -- and that's how I understood Tobias's position > ("this patch has somewhat put me in an awkward position"). > > He explained his concerns, you caused this situation and so far, > you did very little to address his concerns. > (@Tobias: Stop me if I'm wrong on this one.) > > So, to move forward: > Please share your thoughts on how the filesystem should be reworked. > Not only in terms of the desired outcome product-wise, but also > regarding the process how to get there: > Which parts (existing classes/packages, patches-under-review, ...) are > to be worked on by whom and in which order? > > We need a common understanding of this -- to the very least, you and > Tobias. > > Franz > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
