If memory serves me right, "Justin T. Gibbs" wrote:
> >
> >:
> >:You came to the conclusion that only *your decision* on what was
> >:an appropriate proceedure was the one that mattered.  That's not
> >:the way this project works.  You can't act unilaterally.  When people
> >:ask you to hold off (and they even asked politely!) so discussion
> >:can take place, that is not the time to commit.
> >
> >    I did no such thing.
> Let me quote you from below:
> >    So, you see, I didn't "just commit it out of nowhere".  I waited
> >    what I believed to be a reasonable period of time.
> So your oppinion on what was "a reasonable period of time" was the
> only one that mattered. Q.E.D.
> >    I came to the conclusion because not a 
> >    single goddamn person bothered to read the patch and instead
> >    the only argument I got was "wait for John" and John's only 
> >    argument is "I don't like the idea of optimizing this routine
> >    right now" as if he would be the only one responsible for
> >    dealing with the consequences.
> Actually, John's reaction to the patch is a secondary issue.  He
wasn't even able to read the lists when this thing blew up.  He could
> have fallen over backward with love for your changes and you still
> would have strewn cuss words all over our lists.
> [More talk about the irrelevant contents of the patch and
>  "40 hours of work being thrown away" paranoia.]
> >    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.
> How many times do I have to say this?  The patch is not the issue.  Most
> likely it will be incorperated into the tree shortly.  <Yawn>
> I'm sorry Matt, but even if these changes are gold lined, it doesn't
> change the fact that you acted unilaterally in a manner that is not
> conducive to team work.  That it.  That's really it.
> Now do you want me to go chew out John too.  Okay.  John isn't being
> super professional either.  The fact that you started this doesn't change
> that.  You both have done things that you shouldn't have.  Now instead
> of trying to convince us that you are completely without reproach, why
> not move forward in some constructive manner?  Aren't you out of breath
> yet?  Aren't your fingers tired of typing the same old worn out argument,
> "My code excuses my behavior!" again and again?
> >:One week of discussion will not prevent the code from being tested.
> >
> >    Coming on THREE weeks now.  Three weeks of my time wasted arguing
> >    with people who don't even bother to take the time to understand what
> >    I am trying to accomplish...
> This is your choice Matt.  You may not realize it, but you are in control
> of how long this wears on.
> >    Gee, lets see... why don't YOU ask JOHN how long he intends to wait
> >    before he allows this sort of optimization to be made?  Eh?  Please.
> Hey John.  Can you comment on whatever issues you have with the content
> of these changes?  If the API is not compatible with what you are doing,
> please explain why and how those conflicts might be resolved.  Assuming
> that these issues can be addressed and the optimization can be disabled
> via a configuration option, what further reasons are there to not allow
> this change to go into the tree?
> >:>    That is not how I work and I strongly oppose that kind of methodology.
> >:
> >:I think you've made that clear already.  The question is whether you
> >:are willing to compromise so you can be part of a team or not.  That
> >:means, for all of us, that we will not necessarily be able to work in
> >:the way we would personally want, all of the time.  That's what happens
> >:in a group environment.  That's life.
> >
> >    This is not about being part of a team.
> I've played "hide and seek" with people that feel this way.
> "1, 2, 3 Seems like a reasonable amount of time to me...  Ha Ha found
> you!"
> >    You don't have to be forced into using someone else's methodology to
> >    be part of a team.
> No, you have to accept the team's methodology in areas that affect the
> team.  As we say in the States, "your personal liberties end where they
> infrindge on mine."  This is no different.  The CVS repository is not
> yours to commit to any way you like.  The team has a methodology for
> that and as soon as that methodology is broken, we fall into situations
> just like this one.
> >    This IS about team work, but you are barking up the wrong tree if you
> >    think I'm the one who's not being a team player here.
> I know you believe this.  Just as you believed you were reasonable in
> committing that code when you were asked not to.  Just as you continue
> to insist that the content of your patch is the issue here.  I can't
> convince you otherwise, but perhaps I can convince you to drop your
> self righteousness for a bit so we can move on?
> >    you even listening to what I am saying?
> Actually?  No.  This isn't about the code, so your comments about it
> have absolutely no sway with me.  You should save your breath for arguments
> that are actually relevent to this discussion.
> >    Say what?  Who said anything about me not wanting to discuss API changes
> ?
> >    That's all I've been TRYING to do for the last three fucking weeks!
> I don't know about others, but my ears start to shut down when the person
> on the other side of the conversation is swearing and yelling their ideas
> at me.
> >    Are you discussing API changes?  No, you are basically just bashing me.
> Umm.  Did I ever claim to be the one wanting to discuss API changes?  No.
> I just want you to focus on having a rational discussion instead of jumping
> around like a squirl that's had its tail run over.  Is that bashing you?
> Only if you say so.  I'll be happy to "bash" other people that don't
> understand the consequences of their actions on the health of the project.
> I've had similar arguments with phk, obrien, wpaul, and even Jordan.  Don't
> feel special because I'm harping on you this week.
> >:
> >:Did I say anything about source files?  This is about discussion prior
> >:to commit.  Nothing more.
> >
> >    So far there has been no discussion.  Not a single person, most
> >    especially john, has attempted to initiate any constructive discussion
> >    about the API.  
> John has no excuse.  Neither do you.
> >    You obviously didn't go back far enough.  These are the facts:
> >
> >    Matt:    I'm having a go at fixing critical_enter  (Matt discusses
> >             what he would like to do).
> >    Bruce:   Say, I did something very similar to that.
> >    Matt:    Really?  Why didn't you commit it?  Could I have a copy
> >             of what you did?
> >    Bruce:   I hacked a bunch of the issues and it is mixed in with
> >             other things.  Here's a diff of my sys tree.
> >    Matt:    Wow!  Great stuff.
> >             (Matt goes off into a corner and does his stuff, using
> >             BDE's code).
> >    Matt:    Ok guys, I think I have something that works, here try
> >             this.
> >             (two days pass, a few people respond positively)
> >    Matt:    Ok, I am going to commit this.
> >    Others:  wait a week for John.
> >    Matt:    huh?  I don't think this interferes with anything john is
> >             doing.
> >    Others:  wait a week for John.  
> Other than BDE sanctioning your change (also irrelevant), you've just
> verified that you acted even though others, politely, asked you to
> wait.  Thanks!
> >    And it went forward from there.  My ucred changes were already on hold,
> >    and now I was faced with waiting a week for a John.  Well, after all
> >    of that I finally got tired of waiting.  I said, very clearly, that
> >    (A) I intended to commit it.  That (B) I had no problem discussing 
> >    issues with the (unresponsive apparently on vacation) John after the
> >    commit
> In otherwords.  You acted unilaterally.  You seem to be making my
> arguments for me.  Again. Thanks!
> >    Now who is being unreasonable?  Why do you believe that it is absolutely
> >    necessary that I be prevented from committing the work?
> I have never said any such thing.  Go re-read my email if that is the only
> way to prove it to you.  I said that it should only be committed after
> discussion.  Does this mean "don't ever commit that worthless pile of code
> you posted"?  You keep on trying to make it sound that way, but that's
> simply not the case.
> >    If someone asked me to wait a day, or even two, it would not be 
> >    a problem.  But if someone asks me to sit on my heals for a week, or
> >    two, or THREE, without any direct justification, then, yes, I consider
> >    it to be an inappropriate request.
> So you acted unilaterlly.  Perhaps I should count the number of instances
> of the word 'I' in your messages.  'I' is not a teamwork word. 8-)
> I wrote a fully preemtive RTOS on a Z80 before JHB was even born
> I wrote these kick as patches that enhance pre-emption performance.
> I committed to the tree even though others asked me not to because
>    I knew I was right and I knew I had waited a reasonable amount of
>    time.
> The first two don't excuse the last.
> >    I will repeat:  This is a damn good patch.  I want to see it go in.
> Then do the right things so it will.
> --
> Justin
> 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

Reply via email to