I didn't lecture you. I pointed out that you made a mistake that
violated a policy. You chose to get angry about it and are doubling down
even now.
Note that there was no emergency; the port is a port's -devel version
and has few users, and waiting a little bit for the port maintainer to
make a decision would have been fine. There is a strong policy about
this; we are supposed to wait until the port maintainer has had a
reasonable chance to see the pull request, even for openmaintainer ports.
(I agree that the policy may not be the best, but discussing it and
getting it reversed is the right way to approach that, not unilaterally
choosing to ignore the policy.)
It especially wasn't your place to delete my comments. Nor were those
comments mean spirited or harsh; I simply noted that in general, our
policy is to give maintainers time to respond. I was frankly shocked at
your reaction to them.
Note that I did not express a problem with *you*. I noted that your
action violated policy. There is a difference between saying "you
probably just made a mistake" and saying "you're a bad person".
Perry
On 11/11/21 19:39, Christopher Nielsen wrote:
mascguy committed the request after only a few hours before waiting for drkp to
comment (drkp is the maintainer.) This isn't my main concern, however; my main
concern is that mascguy then deleted my comments in which I noted that this
wasn't how things are generally done, which doesn't seem like reasonable
behavior.
A few thoughts:
* I’d strongly argue that lecturing your fellow members, within the context of
a contributor’s PR, is utterly inappropriate. It’s an internal MacPorts-related
matter, and doesn’t send a positive message to our non-members.
* I stand by my decision to remove your comments. They were wholly unrelated to
the PR itself, and such comments pollute the discussion/history.
* If you have an issue with a member, I’d strongly encourage you to take it up
with them privately. And don’t hesitate to CC the Managers for visibility.
As for my deliberate decision to promptly merge the PR you mentioned, I stand
by that as well:
* The port is openmaintainer
* The fix targeted a specific architecture - ARM - minimizing risk.
* The fix related to fatal build issues on ARM, which is undoubtedly impacting
our users. And in the interest of removing barriers for our users - and fatal
build issues on a popular architecture, is certainly a major one - such fixes
arguably shouldn’t wait days or weeks before being merged.
If you’d like to schedule a real-time discussion with the Managers, so that you
can vent your frustrations toward me, I’m certainly open to it.
Frankly, I’m not sure anything else needs to be said. But if you feel
otherwise, let’s chat!
Cheers and Thanks,
-Chris
