On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Michael Smith wrote:
> Trim your cc's.
> > I'm sorry, but simply not liking the idea of someone else doing a
> > particular optimization now verses later is not a good enough reason
> > to require that 40+ hours worth of work be thrown away when that
> > other person has stated, repeatedly, that he will support said code.
> Given that not optimising the code is consistent with the current SMPng
> approach, and given that you went and did this work unsolicited, the
> situation is unfortunate but inevitable.
Geeze Mike I expect bettrer from you..
> > So far not one person, not even you, has been able to explain why
> > the patch should not go in.
> It should not be committed because the current SMPng direction is
> establishment and implementation, not optimisation.
The code actually fixes bugs too. Improvement in performance is a bonus.
> Is that plain enough for you? You're doing the wrong work, as far as the
> general consensus goes.
No, If he had asked you first (and john didn't exist) whould you have
"I think that you should be forbidden from looking at fixing that code."
> > I am angry because you and a number of others are not willing to take
> > the work at face value and instead insist on making ridiculous extremist
> > assumption into it and then using that opinion to justify not allowing
> > the patch to go in.
> You are angry because you've decided that you want to do something, and
> you don't want to be told you can't by someone else.
This is a volunteer process.. Who is to say that anyone is forbidden
from fixing certain problems, especially when the problems are not in any
particular person's Baliwick. These changes are no more in JHB's area than
they are in BDE's. If BDE had committed them there would not have been
a peep out of anyone. (And that's a certainty).
> Had you been reasonable about the situation, your code would probably have
> been committed and you could have spent the last week or more doing
> something else more interesting.
> Instead, you've tried to hold the Project to ransom for your ego. We
> don't tolerate this from anyone, no matter how skillful or useful they
> might otherwise be.
Don't be melodramatic. There was whole week of silence on this topic
when NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON bothered to review the patch. It's interesting
that the loudest people against this patch have not read it.
> This is a collaborative effort, and you need to collaborate on the
> group's terms, not your own.
In a collaborative effort someone would have reviewed the code by now.
> > I can't fight your opinion of me, but you can't expect me to listen
> > to you if you can't justify it. You have already shown very clearly
> > that you aren't even interested in looking at the code, that you
> > don't care what it does, but you are against it anyway.
> That's because this is not about the code; it's about your behaviour.
The behaviour was ok until he got picked on.
The patch was backed out within hours of the request
and he's been waiting for a technical review ever since.
> I find this quite funny. You abuse John for not compromising, yet you're
> not willing to compromise on the issue that's really at hand here (and
> which has been highlighted repeatedly since the first day of dispute).
Matt has put his code up for view and stated that he's willing to discuss
it with anyone.
John has hidden his code in 1MB of patches and refused to comment
on Matt's patch other than to say that he wouldn't have done it.
> This is a consequence of your behaviour. Had you been more reasonable,
> you'd have had less bashing.
May you be on the receiving end sometime. The initial objections were
because some one SUSPECTED that jhb had code in that area.
After the patch was backed out, not a single person has bothered to
review it. Core simply washed it's hands of the deal.
After that I'll tell you that I just about recommended to my company that
we switch to Linux. It was so sickenning.
> Because allowing you to commit it at this stage would represent giving in
> to your attempt to hold the Project to ransom.
No core's refusal to allow a commit shows a childish attempt to show who's
boss, and to ensure that an uppity developer gets what's comming to him.
Ther was a whole week of silence on the topic when Matt waited for
comment, review and critisism. The only critisism he got was in the form
> Had you moderated your tone and worked within the dictates of the
> situation, you'd probably have found a path that would have allowed your
> code to be committed with little effort.
that obviously doesn't work.. see above.
> Unfortunately, you appear not to have learned from your previous
> mistakes, and (again) took an approach which deliberately antagonises
> your co-developers.
> You've successfully manufactured a situation from which it is almost
> impossible to proceed forward; any benefit to the Project that might be
> derived from your code has already been more than offset by time wasted in
> response to your behaviour, and actually giving your your head without
> seeing due process served is simply not consistent with our intention that
> development be managed by consensus.
> Despite your repeated attempts to transfer blame elsewhere, you are
> ultimately the root cause of your current dilemma, and likewise you are
> the only person that can resolve it. Such a resolution is going to
> require a change in approach from you; what you want is eminently
> achievable, you just have to work out that tricky "working with other
> people" thing a bit more.
> = Mike
Who just felt that he had a little too much oil at hand and
couldn't resist throwing it on the fire.
> To announce that there must be no criticism of the president,
> or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not
> only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to
> the American public. - Theodore Roosevelt
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message