@Stefan: It was not clear to me that your intention was to only re-write
the resource implementation.
My biggest problem in the whole situation was the lack of communication
as I did not know what your plans were or rather how you want to proceed.
> 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 .... )
Yes, you told me that the splitting was unnecessary, to which I replied
that I see my error during the design of the new resource implementation
but that the current design works as well and a redesign would not be
worth the effort. That was the full extend of the conversation. I did
not know that this was still an issue for you, otherwise I would have
been happy to discuss it with you and do the re-design myself
(admittedly with a few weeks of delay as I do not have the time right
now). And even if you wanted to do it yourself, it would have been nice
to talk about it with me beforehand.
> I already told Tobias just to continue his stuff. You can then integrate
> this stuff.
We discussed that I can just add further patches to the 'big patch'.
This did address my concern on how to work while the integration of the
big patch is still ongoing (which probably won't be an issue any more),
but I was still not sure how the rest of the integration was going to
proceed. Your actions and comments left me under the impression that you
were going to integrate (and adjust) the entire patch yourself.
My main concerns with this issue are how we are going to proceed and how
we can improve our communication to avoid something like this in the future.
Am 05/05/2017 um 15:12 schrieb Zieris, Franz:
> 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.
> @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"?
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
