Leo Prikler <leo.prik...@student.tugraz.at> writes: > Hi Mark, > > Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 18:12 -0400 schrieb Mark H Weaver: >> Hi Leo, >> >> Leo Prikler <leo.prik...@student.tugraz.at> writes: >> >> > Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 19:02 +0200 schrieb Giovanni Biscuolo: >> > > I also spent some time re-reading messages that Mark sent in this >> > > thread and, like him, I really don't understand what Mark did >> > > wrong. >> > > >> > > For sure Mark /insisted/ that Raghav and Léo did something wrong >> > > with >> > > some commits, we can say Mark did it being /direct/ and >> > > /accusatory/ >> > > but we cannot really say Mark assumed bad faith from them. >> > He did wrong insofar as his accusatory message read as though he >> > was >> > assuming bad faith
Hello Leo, I see nothing wrong for assuming bad faith when security fixes of packages are removed, in the end the truth matter, which I believe is: You thought the patches for cario is not needed now on core-updates, so you remove them. > [...] > Well, you did fumble on those facts a little, because the true history > of the misleading commits was only discovered later. So did I in the > same thread. Either way, "just pointing out facts" is not an accurate > assessment in my opinion; facts are nothing without interpretation, > which see. Yes, you have to take actions based on interpretation to get more clues from existed facts to reach the truth. > [...] > Let it be said, that I don't condemn you for starting this thread. Not > only did it highlight an issue, that would otherwise have gone > unnoticed, I think most of the participants are now more acutely aware > of what might go wrong if they evade review. It is sad, that things > turned out the way they did, but despite what others might claim you > don't bear sole responsibility for that. Sure, I think we just lack some trust. With the trust, you'll know that Mark only want to confirm the truth with you and avoid this kind of issues in the future.
