[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnash-dev] Dictatorship again ?

From: Rob Savoye
Subject: Re: [Gnash-dev] Dictatorship again ?
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 07:43:20 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv: Gecko/20101027 Fedora/3.1.6-1.fc13 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.6

On 12/10/10 00:42, strk wrote:

> That's the reason why I made the initial change.
> Since you can see exactly who committed it (me) if my change broke
> something you should ask _me_ to fix it, giving as many details about
> what's broken as you can.

  Fixing some like a config/build problem myself at which I am an expert
at, seems more useful than reverting a change. My changes were not a
revert at all, I attempted to merge what I needed into what you had
done. That's the way it's supposed to work.

> My revno.h generation model was well thought and designed

  So was mine solution.

> Wasn't a technical git revert, but had same effects.

  The only effect was yup setting you. :-)

> File a bug instead, as the commit policy dictates.
> Is it critical to have snapshot packages built every hour ?

  I've been trying for days to get them to build at all

> Let's talk about that for a moment ?
> What does it pay defaulting to a date when normal operations have a
> sequencial version ?

  A date is sequential. The machines that use dates only use dates, and
not the revno, ever. That's life on some of the build I have access to.
Better a date than nothing at all, which is what was happening.

> You wake up, get on IRC and start complaining about what an awful commit
> I made and how you'll be spending days to fix what I broke.

  Which is what happened. Then you refuse to admit putting revno,h in
the source tree is a bad idea.

> Try to make good bug reports instead, and things get worked upon.
> I'm still here, working on gnash. Even w/out a budget.

  Often fixing the bug is better than filing a bug report. I needed it
fixed so I could build packages.

> The technical problems are being reported cleanly above and in
> other mails. Social one is just about respecting the policies we
> gave ourselves: respect the work of others.

 Strk, you are the one reverting all my commits for days out of spite.
Your one revert message even said you were just doing it because you
could... I haven't reverted anything at all, ever. I've thought about it
before, but always backed off as reverting changes is rude and poor

> I'm kind of tired to go look for others, since I've spent hours on these
> in the first place.

  I've spent days... Every time I get it to work, you revert it. Then I
merge in another version, then you revert it... Have you ever thought of
patching code, instead of just reverting it ?

> I'd ask you to get back to my first commit (the one you destroyed)

  I am going back to my last working version, your first commit was
broken for the reasons mentioned. You will not revert my commits *ever*.
Reverting is best left up to the maintainer with group consensus. That's
what we all agreed.

        - rob -

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]