This has to do with how jakub@gentoo.org answers bug reports. It has happened twice so far. These are the first responses I received from jakub https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=132388 'So, what's the terrible bug here? Those UD letters? Definitely a dupe of something I don't care enough to search for.' https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=134825 'May I ask why the heck are you trying to emerge kdemultimedia-arts if you set USE="-arts" ?!' All I am waiting for is the typical RTFM. He writes like a stereotypical Linux elitist snub. This is unusual for in my experience and in reputation Gentoo is one of the most user-friendly groups in the Linux community.
don seemantori, any thoughts?
Closing. Reopen if this is still a problem.
Just to make a note (I'm sorry that I did not, prior). Jakub and I did talk about this and other complaints at the time. My own observation is that his attitude is a LOT better since. If you feel that I am in error, please let me know.
I believe Jakub is just as much of an ass as ever before, despite efforts by Seemant and others within Gentoo to make him a "nicer person". https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149113 https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=169890 I'm sure its possible to dig up 101 other examples of required. In the aftermath of the council meeting yesterday, when Developer Relations was asked to deal with stuff like this - I feel this deserves another revisiting.
Going to restrict this to Gentoo Developers (+ reporter, +CC'd), since we don't need to air our dirty laundry all over the world for no good reason. Another example of attitude problem: 22:43 < kloeri> jakub: please answer me 22:44 < spb> jakub doesn't need to answer to anyone 22:44 < spb> he is the supreme master of bugzilla, remember 22:44 <@vorlon078> aetius: btw, i'll gonna put you on the glsa-commits alias, ok? so you receive the diffs of changes to drafts 22:45 <+eroyf> spb: :D 22:45 <@aetius> ok 22:45 <@vorlon078> guess it is the only alias we don't receive any spam on ;-) 22:45 <@aetius> I'm still trying to decide how to set up my mail, heh 22:45 <@aetius> been a long, long time since I had this volume of mail. 22:46 <@vorlon078> procmail sorts out all the bounce stuff for me, that reduces it quite a bit 22:46 <@vorlon078> but the amount of useless mail on security@ is ummm amazing 22:46 <@aetius> yeah, heh 22:46 < kloeri> jakub have exactly 10 minutes to answer me before I remove his bugzie privs on account of spamming 22:47 < spb> \o/ 22:47 <+eroyf> \o/ 22:47 < spb> he probably has you on ignore 22:47 < spb> which would be hilarious 22:48 < kloeri> that's his problem really 22:48 < jakub> kloeri: uh, what's exactly your problem? last arch left gets the bug, been doing this for ages... maybe you could calm down? 22:49 < kloeri> or maybe I could ask you to stop spamming everybody for no reason at all 22:49 < kloeri> it serves absolutely no purpose at all besides producing spam 22:49 < kloeri> so please stop it right now 22:51 < jakub> I'm already finished anyway... so, some other problem? 22:51 < kloeri> now please don't do anything as stupid as that again 22:51 < kloeri> I really don't enjoy getting that much spam for no good reason 22:52 * jakub shakes his head and moves on... we are OT here anyway 22:53 < spb> notice the way he refuses to admit any possibility that he might be wrong, and instead claims that the problem is entirely with kloeri 22:53 < kloeri> I wanted to talk to you about it in #-dev but you've apparently decided to leave that channel 22:53 <+eroyf> spb: heh 22:53 < jakub> well, I probably missed some cool joke, too bad spb is still on my ignore list 22:54 < spb> someone tell him that noone cares whom he's ignoring, and that saying it all the time doesn't make him cool 22:54 <+eroyf> nod 22:54 < kloeri> well, I'm happy to repeat it but you wouldn't listen anyway
Adding jakub@gentoo.org to CC'd being as it concerns him, and my apologies for not doing this sooner - cheers to nightmorph for noticing :-)
Hmmm, someone actually lets me know this bug exists, about 10 months after it's been filed; nice... :) Well sorry, dunno exactly on what should I comment here? - Yeah I have spb on ignore list to prevent further flaming (reading the log in comment #5 suggests that it's been a good decision and its not gonna change anytime soon). I'm not hanging out in #-dev for exactly the same reason. - And yeah, also not hanging out in #-bugs and #-qa anymore, after being banned on both by eroyf). - So, expecting someone to respond on some random channel in minutes is a bit unrealistic, I'd prefer to not comment on the 'before I remove his bugzie privs' portion of the log at all, uh... - Yeah, I've removed arches that already keyworded/stabilized the stuff but didn't remove themselves from CC, re-assigned keywording/stabilization bugs to the appropriate remaining arch there if it was the only arch left, and I've closed loads of stale keywording bugs that have already been fixed but left unresolved by mistake. I've been doing exactly the same for quite some time without anyone threatening to remove my bugzilla privs. Perhaps people should calm down a bit instead of making such a big fuss about I guess ~20-30 bugmails in their mailbox? I'm receiving the same amount in one hour every day. Finished here, thanks.
(In reply to comment #7) > - And yeah, also not hanging out in #-bugs and #-qa anymore, after being banned > on both by eroyf). You were banned from both channels for incessant whining and trying to derail actual dev work. > > - So, expecting someone to respond on some random channel in minutes is a bit > unrealistic, I'd prefer to not comment on the 'before I remove his bugzie > privs' portion of the log at all, uh... I didn't just expect you to respond. I checked your idle time and you were active several minutes after my first question, hence my idea that you were ignoring me just like you ignore spb and possibly several other devs. I first asked you 30 minutes before asking you to please answer at which point the server said you'd been idle for less than a minute. So I don't think it was unreasonable at all to assume you either ignored me or simply didn't want to answer my question. > > - Yeah, I've removed arches that already keyworded/stabilized the stuff but > didn't remove themselves from CC, re-assigned keywording/stabilization bugs to > the appropriate remaining arch there if it was the only arch left, and I've > closed loads of stale keywording bugs that have already been fixed but left > unresolved by mistake. I've been doing exactly the same for quite some time > without anyone threatening to remove my bugzilla privs. Perhaps people should > calm down a bit instead of making such a big fuss about I guess ~20-30 bugmails > in their mailbox? I'm receiving the same amount in one hour every day. It's not your job to reassign bugs from maintainers without talking to them first. I hope I've made that clear to you.
(In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #7) > > - And yeah, also not hanging out in #-bugs and #-qa anymore, after being banned > > on both by eroyf). > You were banned from both channels for incessant whining and trying to derail > actual dev work. Erm no, I've been banned because a certain QA member dislikes my opinion on our QA (and yeah, I have the logs just in case you wonder...), and apparently he prefers to ban people instead of providing arguments. > I didn't just expect you to respond. I checked your idle time and you were > active several minutes after my first question, hence my idea that you were > ignoring me just like you ignore spb and possibly several other devs. > > I first asked you 30 minutes before asking you to please answer at which point > the server said you'd been idle for less than a minute. So I don't think it was > unreasonable at all to assume you either ignored me or simply didn't want to > answer my question. Of course I was active and not idle, actually busy talking to someone else... That's what /query is for if you have something urgent, not calling out on a channel that's completely unrelated to the topic here.
(In reply to comment #8) > It's not your job to reassign bugs from maintainers without talking to them > first. I hope I've made that clear to you. Noone's re-assigning bugs from maintainers, they all remained CCed there as you can check.
(In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #8) > > It's not your job to reassign bugs from maintainers without talking to them > > first. I hope I've made that clear to you. > > Noone's re-assigning bugs from maintainers, they all remained CCed there as you > can check. > There's a difference between assigned-to and cc'ed though. And the thing that pissed many devs off was that it was completely unneccessary spam that did absolutely nothing good at all. If you think the maintainer was unresponsive you could just have made sure the herd(s) were cc'ed on the bugs. No need to mass reassign bugs like that at all.
This cycle is going nowhere, people. There isn't a policy against reassigning bugs. Should there be? If we know exactly what jakub is trying to achieve with the reassignments, perhaps some sort of compromise can be reached.
(In reply to comment #12) > This cycle is going nowhere, people. > There isn't a policy against reassigning bugs. Should there be? > > If we know exactly what jakub is trying to achieve with the reassignments, > perhaps some sort of compromise can be reached. You know, it's really easy... when the last arch finishes keywording, they close the bug as it's assigned to them. Usually noone forgets. What happens now is that at certain time I end up cleaning up 1+ year's worth pile of bugs checking for every single keyword there, removing CCs and closing those which just remained forgotten (was over 60 bugs today out of ~470). If some maintainer is unhappy about this, they can just talk to me and we'll figure it out, instead of me ending up being hunted by devrel lead planning to revoke my bugzilla privs, perhaps? Kinda got out of proportion, and yeah it's not exactly going anywhere.
(In reply to comment #12) > This cycle is going nowhere, people. > > There isn't a policy against reassigning bugs. Should there be? > No, but there's a policy against useless spamming. Mass reassignments where you just swap assignee and cc is spam or worse.
(In reply to comment #13) > (In reply to comment #12) > > This cycle is going nowhere, people. > > There isn't a policy against reassigning bugs. Should there be? > > > > If we know exactly what jakub is trying to achieve with the reassignments, > > perhaps some sort of compromise can be reached. > > You know, it's really easy... when the last arch finishes keywording, they > close the bug as it's assigned to them. Usually noone forgets. What happens now > is that at certain time I end up cleaning up 1+ year's worth pile of bugs > checking for every single keyword there, removing CCs and closing those which > just remained forgotten (was over 60 bugs today out of ~470). > > If some maintainer is unhappy about this, they can just talk to me and we'll > figure it out, instead of me ending up being hunted by devrel lead planning to > revoke my bugzilla privs, perhaps? Kinda got out of proportion, and yeah it's > not exactly going anywhere. > It pissed off a lot of developers so I really hope you're not going to do it again. It's not just me being pissed off as lots of devs have told me to talk to you about it as they were really pissed by the useless spam and having to check every single mail to see what you did to make sure they didn't lose any bugs.
(In reply to comment #13) > > If some maintainer is unhappy about this, they can just talk to me and we'll > figure it out, instead of me ending up being hunted by devrel lead planning to > revoke my bugzilla privs, perhaps? Kinda got out of proportion, and yeah it's > not exactly going anywhere. > I would for example appreciate a mail to for example gentoo-dev before doing these kinds of things so that people know before hand and can say now if they want to.
> If some maintainer is unhappy about this, they can just talk to me and we'll > figure it out o.k. Jakub, seeing as you don't appear to have heard it the first time you did a mass re-assign of all my bugs, and didn't even try and contact me the second time, and still continue to bitch at me in bugs when i'm clearly on holiday (see my dev .away), I'm going to publicly ask you to stay the hell away from all of my bugs, you've caused me more annoyance than you've benefitted me, so kindly just leave me and my bugs alone.
(In reply to comment #17) > time, and still continue to bitch at me in bugs when i'm clearly on holiday > (see my dev .away), I'm going to publicly ask you to stay the hell away from > all of my bugs, you've caused me more annoyance than you've benefitted me, so > kindly just leave me and my bugs alone. Yeah; and I'd ask you to assign the bugs to someone who does give a damn about them. Trivial stuff being broken for 2+ years is not even funny any more. Your holiday is your problem, the broken ebuilds are a problem for every Gentoo exim user our there. You don't give a damn about them, beyond your periodic rants about re-assigning "your" precious bugs that you haven't noticed for years... What exactly are you after here? Either fix your crap or stop moaning, not much funny any more.
irrelevant ... if you feel a bug isnt being addressed, you talk to the person, you do not go reassigning their bugs without asking
What's exactly irrelevant? A MIA maintainer that doesn't give a damn about 2+ years old bugs? Or QA ignoring the same because the maintainer told them to ignore it? Or...? Sorry, I'm not going to hunt the MIA devs, either they maintain the thing or they should move their territorial pissings (such as in Bug 143519) to /dev/null. People w/ 7 commits for the past year should be retired. Not to mention that the last email exchange just didn't move things an inch further, so Bug 82772 got carried on into yet another ebuild version, yay.
(In reply to comment #20) > Sorry, I'm not going to hunt the MIA devs, either they maintain the thing or > they should move their territorial pissings (such as in Bug 143519) to > /dev/null. People w/ 7 commits for the past year should be retired. Right, you said it yourself. Time for kloeri to retire you. Excellent. Short, sharp and to the point. For once. Thanks.
(In reply to comment #21) > Right, you said it yourself. Time for kloeri to retire you. Excellent. Removing myself from CC; good luck here, folks. @Colin: I've got enough mail in my mailbox as it is, no need to read the rants of devs that have been on holiday for past two years and get horribly offended when someone else fixes their stuff. The tree is not your personal toy and if you don't care, someone else maybe does.
Developer Relations have come to the unfortunate decision to suspend jakub for two weeks. Below follows the suspension notice that's been mailed to jakub and pasted in /query on irc as well as added to this bug. --------------------------- Subject: Two week suspension due to bad behaviour Hi Jakub. As Developer Relations keeps getting complaints about your behaviour from both developers and users and warnings don't seem to improve your behaviour we have decided to give you a two week suspension. Specifically you need to follow the Code of Conduct when posting on bugzilla and mailinglists and respect the wishes of maintainers. Doing mass reassignments without trying to contact the maintainer first or even against their explicit requests is at best very rude and ruins any chance of working together. Comments such as "Stop moaning already, you had months to damn fix this yourself, you just didn't care." (see bug 143519, comment #6) is completely out of line and Developer Relations won't tolerate any attacks such as this. You're as much a part of the community as the ebuild maintainers and we need to respect each others wishes and requests - something you've unfortunately displayed a strong will not to do. Finally, we also find it troublesome that you continually remove yourself from any discussion about possible misbehaviour on your side (see bug 134852, comment #22). Be it by removing Developer Relations (or members there of) from mail exchanges or removing yourself from bugs complaining about your behaviour. If you want to stay a part of the Gentoo developer community you have to change this immediately. Failing to correct your behaviour after the suspension will lead to stronger actions possibly even removing you from Gentoo. Hope you'll correct your behaviour and stay as an asset to Gentoo. During the suspension access to @gentoo.org mail, cvs and bugzilla privileges will be disabled. Mails will be queued waiting for your return. If you want to participate on bugzilla as a normal user during the suspension you're advised to create another bugzilla account using a non-gentoo.org address. Regards, Bryan Østergaard Developer Relations lead
(In reply to comment #21) > (In reply to comment #20) > > Sorry, I'm not going to hunt the MIA devs, either they maintain the thing or > > they should move their territorial pissings (such as in Bug 143519) to > > /dev/null. People w/ 7 commits for the past year should be retired. > > Right, you said it yourself. Time for kloeri to retire you. Excellent. Is this kind of behaviour acceptable by devrel standards? Jakub is (was) far more active than the author of this rant (see cia).
(In reply to comment #24) > (In reply to comment #21) > > (In reply to comment #20) > > > Sorry, I'm not going to hunt the MIA devs, either they maintain the thing or > > > they should move their territorial pissings (such as in Bug 143519) to > > > /dev/null. People w/ 7 commits for the past year should be retired. > > > > Right, you said it yourself. Time for kloeri to retire you. Excellent. > > Is this kind of behaviour acceptable by devrel standards? Jakub is (was) far > more active than the author of this rant (see cia). > Good or bad behaviour is not a question of amount of activity. That said I think Alex' comment was bad as it could only further the hostility on this bug and I wish he'd just let developer relations handle the situation.
Unrestricting. If I restricted it, I don't recall why. If I didn't, I don't see why.
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_activity.cgi?id=134852
Please, retire me. I'm pretty much tired of this bullshit, politically correct language crap and all related stuff... I hope my retirement will make wolf31o2 and a couple more devs and users happy, because I'm such an examplary specimen of condescending and offensive asshole (oh, watch all my badness on Bug 178512 e.g.) that I deserve to be devrel-ed over and over and over again. So, thanks everyone, and good luck. Finished here. No need for devrel to waste more time with me.
Hold please.
Look, it is apparent that you think I am out to get you. I am not. Look at what I said. I am out to get you to stop treating users like crap. That is all. If you want to think I have some kind of agenda or whatever, I could care less. I also could care less how your first reaction as an attempt to justify your own actions are to try to point out where other people are doing wrong or have done wrong in the past. Let me tell you a little secret. It is irrelevant. What others do does not affect how you act yourself. You are fully in control over your own actions. You are responsible for your own actions. It is as simple as that. What I saw was repeated behavior that you have been asked repeatedly to stop doing. You were even suspended because of it. At that point, I saw no reason to do anything other than contact Developer Relations, since it was clear to me that you likely had no intentions of changing in the first place, and your behavior was considered poor enough by Developer Relations to suspend you for it. What I really would like to see is for you to change your attitude. I just don't think it will happen, as you have already been given ample chances to do so and have not. Call me a pessimist, but I only give someone so many chances before I just write them off. I don't think you want to change and that is a problem since Gentoo doesn't want your attitude, in its current form, as evidenced by this bug and your prior suspension.
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=178085 Here's another bug, showing Jakub's poor attitude and lack of tact when dealing with a user and myself. I especially like the "I'm rubber, you're glue" counter-argument in http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=178085#c8 where, once again, Jakub tries to justify his actions by not taking responsibility for them.
(In reply to comment #31) > Here's another bug, showing Jakub's poor attitude and lack of tact when dealing > with a user and myself. I especially like the "I'm rubber, you're glue" > counter-argument See, I'm pretty much tired of random people getting at me for pathetic reasons whenever they feel like doing some weird sort of PR campaign for themselves or whatnot. Yeah, if a bug is useless, I tell the user that it's useless. If it gets mis-assigned over and over again despite the huge bold descriptions on the bugzilla homepage, I tell them they mis-assigned it. Sue me. (And seriously, read your posts on -dev ML archives and think about why I got particularly pissed off when *you* decided to me put me to task on those two bugs, maybe you'll get it.)
(In reply to comment #31) > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=178085 > > Here's another bug, showing Jakub's poor attitude and lack of tact when dealing > with a user and myself. I especially like the "I'm rubber, you're glue" > counter-argument in http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=178085#c8 where, > once again, Jakub tries to justify his actions by not taking responsibility for > them. Umm, Chris, are you really serious? I consider myself a third-party observer, so I can't understand that you are asking Jakub to be more polite while you don't have anything against agaffney's comments on that bug. (Disclaimer -- I agree with agaffney there. I just merely picked this example in order to show the audience that you're probably a little biased).
(In reply to comment #33) > (Disclaimer -- I agree with agaffney there. I just merely picked this example > in order to show the audience that you're probably a little biased). ++ I don't see the offensive part of jakub's comments. Maybe my skin is thicker than it should.
Spill over from Bug 178085 which depends on Bug 178512 is coming here, I see.
(In reply to comment #33) > Umm, Chris, are you really serious? I consider myself a third-party observer, > so I can't understand that you are asking Jakub to be more polite while you > don't have anything against agaffney's comments on that bug. Wolf31o2 has already addressed agaffney's comments on the bug internally, as agaffney is a part of releng. There was no need to create a bug for an issue which was already addressed.
(In reply to comment #33) > Umm, Chris, are you really serious? I consider myself a third-party observer, > so I can't understand that you are asking Jakub to be more polite while you > don't have anything against agaffney's comments on that bug. Yes, I am serious. You will also notice that this bug doesn't say "Retire: agaffney" or "Andrew Gaffney: An attaitude problem..." in the summary. This bug is about Jakub. As I stated before, it seems to have become standard operating procedure for everyone to try to use the "but he did..." argument. I'm sorry, but I don't think that holds water. It doesn't matter what someone else did. Each person is responsible for their own actions. > (Disclaimer -- I agree with agaffney there. I just merely picked this example > in order to show the audience that you're probably a little biased). There is no bias. I spoke with Andrew, as Chrissy mentioned, and asked him to refrain from making such pointed comments to users that obviously need a little more hand holding. He agreed. Since this has not been a problem in the past with Andrew, and I am his "manager" in Release Engineering, there was no need for further action. Also, this bug is not about Andrew. It is about Jakub. I have asked Jakub a few times to be more tactful with his responses, and have asked him to refrain from making comments and otherwise performing actions that I consider more to be harassment than helping, especially when engaged on active bugs. Quite simply, a bug wrangler has no need to be active on a bug where the bug owners are responsive. The bug wrangler especially does not need to be active when his comments are meant to berate the user. As for Jakub's response about looking at myself. I don't need to do so. I know what I have said in the past. I will poitn out again that this bug doesn't have *my* name on it. It has Jakub's. This bug is about his actions and his actions alone. Had I been party to some form of flame war or otherwise enticing Jakub, it would be different, as action would be being taken against both of us, but I did not. Also, if the "third-party observers" could please leave their comments to themselves, it would reduce the bug emails on these bugs and be much appreciated. If you're not a part of the actual issue at hand, you likely don't need to comment. I am putting in a report with Developer Relations. The involved parties are Jakub, myself, and Developer Relations. Developer Relations *is* the "third party observer" in this case. It is their job. I'm pretty sure they don't need any additional help, but if you're really concerned, I know their project is always looking for good people. You should join them. As for why I responded here, the answer is simple. I was going through release bugs and in the course of a minute, I ran across two bug emails from Jakub where he was being condescending or otherwise abusive to users who were trying to get help from me and my team. I added devrel@gentoo.org to those bugs, after asking Jakub to please cease such behavior and being met with a sarcastic and pointless retort. I commented here to keep the Developer Relations information where it belongs, in this bug, and not in the actual bug reports about the release. Please keep any information regarding Jakub, myself, and Developer Relations on this bug and not on my release bugs. They have been disturbed enough by this unfortunate noise.
(In reply to comment #37) > Quite simply, a bug wrangler has no need to be active on a bug > where the bug owners are responsive. The bug wrangler especially does not need > to be active when his comments are meant to berate the user. Eh; one of the bugs has been mis-assigned to Gentoo Bugzilla product, perhaps I should leave it rotting there to not disturb you. The other was simply next in the list, with no useful info and no response from user for a couple of days, so it got closed. For the rest, I'm not going to comment here, already said what I think about your activity.
(In reply to comment #37) > Yes, I am serious. You will also notice that this bug doesn't say "Retire: > agaffney" or "Andrew Gaffney: An attaitude problem..." in the summary. This > bug is about Jakub. OTOH, bug 178085 doesn't have Jakub's name in the summary, yet you expressed your concern with Jakub's behavior there. Pardon my comments, but this really makes it look like you aren't upright. > As I stated before, it seems to have become standard > operating procedure for everyone to try to use the "but he did..." argument. > I'm sorry, but I don't think that holds water. It doesn't matter what someone > else did. Each person is responsible for their own actions. It doesn't, indeed. You can expect that someone points it out if you treat two people in a different way. > As for Jakub's response about looking at myself. I don't need to do so. I > know what I have said in the past. I will poitn out again that this bug > doesn't have *my* name on it. It has Jakub's. This bug is about his actions > and his actions alone. In the US-based TV series I used to watch, it's common and perfectly legal in your country to point out that a witness is biased. That's what I'm trying to do here. > Also, if the "third-party observers" could please leave their comments to > themselves, it would reduce the bug emails on these bugs and be much > appreciated. If you're not a part of the actual issue at hand, you likely > don't need to comment. Much appreciated by whom? I'm sorry, but I'm likely to comment when I see something new that I can't agree with. If it disturbs you, perhaps your mail setup has an option to filter me away. > As for why I responded here, the answer is simple. I assume you're referring to bug 178085 here, please correct me if I'm wrong. > Please keep any information regarding Jakub, myself, and > Developer Relations on this bug and not on my release bugs. They have been > disturbed enough by this unfortunate noise. I'll reiterate the obvious, but it was you who actually brought that to 178085...
OK, have reconsidered retiring and am working with devrel on this. As such, closing this bug.
For the record, in this case, "devrel" means musikc or me (arrived at independently).
(In reply to comment #40) > OK, have reconsidered retiring and am working with devrel on this. As such, > closing this bug. OK. Wouldn't that mean it is up to Developer Relations to close, since this was, in my understanding, for reports about your public attitude on bugs? Jan: This is exactly why I think the "armchair devrel" would probably do best to not comment. Had you bothered to look at the timestamps on said comments on said bugs, you would see that the problem started on those bugs, and was moved to this, more appropriate bug. That being said, I'm not responding to anything else. If musikc or fmccor need anything further from me, they can ask.
(In reply to comment #42) > OK. Wouldn't that mean it is up to Developer Relations to close, since this > was, in my understanding, for reports about your public attitude on bugs? > > Jan: This is exactly why I think the "armchair devrel" would probably do best > to not comment. Had you bothered to look at the timestamps on said comments on > said bugs, you would see that the problem started on those bugs, and was moved > to this, more appropriate bug. Jakub, wolf31o2, and Developer Relations (fmccor and musikc) have worked on resolving these issues. Jakub has agreed formulate his responses in a palatable manner as situations may warrant and to confer with either fmccor or musikc before commenting on possibly controversial bugs. Wolf31o2 has agreed to follow escalation procedures should future incidents arrive with Jakub or any others. As this is a DevRel bug, further comments from parties not involved will not be necessary.
Closing as per comments 40, 41, and 43.
Well, it looks like some people never learn. I know that everybody claims Jakub is going to start treating other developers better, but he hasn't. This morning, I made this commit due to a change made by Alexander (eroyf) for bug #166790. <CIA-24> wolf31o2 * gentoo-x86/profiles/default-linux/ (9 files in 5 dirs): Reverting Alexander's unwarranted masking of zlib USE on pciutils. Please read the comments before making any changes. Now, after my commit, I get this little gem from Jakub. <jakub> wolf31o2: happy now? long live total idiocy <wolf31o2> jakub: I'll let you know when your opinion starts to matter to me <jakub> wolf31o2: yeah, the same here? apparently you need a devrel bug opened <wolf31o2> feel free, my friend, feel free <jakub> stop messing with stuff that you have none of the fucking business to mess with <wolf31o2> because my desire to find a proper technical solution is *such* a developer relations issue <jakub> wolf31o2: so write the fucking patch and get it accepted upstream, until then just STFU <wolf31o2> please continue, jakub <wolf31o2> you're only digging your own hole <jakub> yeah, definitely... <Cardoe> wolf31o2: did you read any of the comments before you made a change? <jakub> care to enlighten me why should anyone wish to co-operate w/ people that are deliberately breaking gentoo users? <wolf31o2> I read them all <eroyf> SHUT UP <eroyf> lots of you <jakub> moron <Cardoe> eroyf: ya? <eroyf> topic. <jakub> wolf31o2: go care about your releng business (which is broken by vapier's shit as well, btw) and stop this <eroyf> this is not a battlechannel for any of you <wolf31o2> jakub: considering I'm on the Council, my business is all of Gentoo, so please refrain from your inflammatory responses now before appropriate action needs to be taken <Cardoe> topic... <jakub> wolf31o2: yah, as shown by your commit above <jakub> you've nbroken all desktop profile's users, maybe you should resign from council <jakub> if you actively support this idiocy <wolf31o2> Cardoe: you're right, I apologize... simple solution... /ignore jakub... I'm done Can we reopen this bug now? This behavior has not stopped. It has not even been curbed. The previous actions to improve Jakub's behavior have failed. I'm sick of being constantly berated and attacked by this individual. He has made Gentoo a chore for me rather than a fun hobby.
(In reply to comment #45) Way to go.... You've broken our QA policies, and now go cry on devrel's shoulders. I'd ask devrel to remove your commit access, but why should I care actually about this continuing idiocy.
So now I get this sort of abuse in #-commits... When are we going to do something about this sort of attitude? <jakub> wolf31o2: yay! we really needed that... need someone to pat you on your back for the great job you've done on that bug?
Because we oh so totally need to save people from wasting ~200KB of diskspace that Gentoo council needs to deal with the crucial issue of foremost importancy!!!111! Wheeeeeeeeee, keep on moaning!
(In reply to comment #45) > Well, it looks like some people never learn. I know that everybody claims > Jakub is going to start treating other developers better, but he hasn't. > > This morning, I made this commit due to a change made by Alexander (eroyf) for > bug #166790. > > <CIA-24> wolf31o2 * gentoo-x86/profiles/default-linux/ (9 files in 5 dirs): > Reverting Alexander's unwarranted masking of zlib USE on pciutils. Please read > the comments before making any changes. > > Now, after my commit, I get this little gem from Jakub. > > <jakub> wolf31o2: happy now? long live total idiocy > <wolf31o2> jakub: I'll let you know when your opinion starts to matter to me > <jakub> wolf31o2: yeah, the same here? apparently you need a devrel bug opened > <wolf31o2> feel free, my friend, feel free > <jakub> stop messing with stuff that you have none of the fucking business to > mess with > <wolf31o2> because my desire to find a proper technical solution is *such* a > developer relations issue > <jakub> wolf31o2: so write the fucking patch and get it accepted upstream, > until then just STFU > <wolf31o2> please continue, jakub > <wolf31o2> you're only digging your own hole > <jakub> yeah, definitely... > <Cardoe> wolf31o2: did you read any of the comments before you made a change? > <jakub> care to enlighten me why should anyone wish to co-operate w/ people > that are deliberately breaking gentoo users? > <wolf31o2> I read them all > <eroyf> SHUT UP > <eroyf> lots of you > <jakub> moron > <Cardoe> eroyf: ya? > <eroyf> topic. > <jakub> wolf31o2: go care about your releng business (which is broken by > vapier's shit as well, btw) and stop this > <eroyf> this is not a battlechannel for any of you > <wolf31o2> jakub: considering I'm on the Council, my business is all of Gentoo, > so please refrain from your inflammatory responses now before appropriate > action needs to be taken > <Cardoe> topic... > <jakub> wolf31o2: yah, as shown by your commit above > <jakub> you've nbroken all desktop profile's users, maybe you should resign > from council > <jakub> if you actively support this idiocy > <wolf31o2> Cardoe: you're right, I apologize... simple solution... /ignore > jakub... I'm done > > Can we reopen this bug now? This behavior has not stopped. It has not even > been curbed. The previous actions to improve Jakub's behavior have failed. > I'm sick of being constantly berated and attacked by this individual. He has > made Gentoo a chore for me rather than a fun hobby. > No. You are both out of line in -commits (which is not a discussion channel), and I took note on bug 166790 (which set this off) please not to get into a commit/decommit cycle; rather, handle this within QA. Why are you out of line? You issued a threat based on the fact that you are on council.
(In reply to comment #49) > Why are you out of line? You issued a threat based on the fact that you are on > council. What threat? I asked him to stop or I would report him, which I did. The comment about me being on the Council has to do with my "jurisdiction" over the changes being made. I'm also a member of QA, several arch teams, and Release Engineering, who generally maintains default-linux profiles, where these changes were made. Anyway, I'm giving up on this, since it is obvious that you cannot do anything to make Jakub's attitude better towards myself and other developers.
This bug is being reopened as Developer Relations is continuing its investigation.
(In reply to comment #51) > This bug is being reopened as Developer Relations is continuing its > investigation. Shrug; maybe your time would be better spent investigating QA members who deliberately and repeatedly break users, or maybe those QA members should remove themselves from the team if all they have to say is stuff like "do you seriously expect the QA team to do something ? they havent been effective since Halcy0n left" (see Bug 166790 Comment #27 for the fun).
Alexander package.masked the use flag to fix breakage for hal. Wolf reverted it against qa's request to keep it masked and against ferris's request for him and others to leave it alone. Jakub's attitude in all of this starts to degrade because he gets angry with Chris who ignores devrel's and qa's request to leave things alon. Meanwhile, Chris's own attitude turns negative in his comments, so he is just as wrong. Not just that but in in reverting Alexander's changes Chris is most likely in violation of glep 48. With jakub's bug i see 2 people who are constantly sniping at each other and who obviously don't know how to get along. The 2 of them need to stop sniping at eachother and respect the qa team's majority vote. I see no reason to keep this bug open and investigate it further, if these 2 would grow up and stop acting like children who fight over toys then things will be fine. Sure Jakub has an attitude problem but we have devs with attitude problems worse than his if we start going after people for that we'll have worse problems than this.
You're right, Deedra. I apologize for having faith in all Developer Relations members being capable of actually investigating an issue, as presented. I would like to note that neither Ferris nor Deedra have bothered to discuss this with me, so I would request that another member of Developer Relations who actually wishes to come to a resolution of Jakub's attitude problem work this report. Some points to also note: - Alexander made his commit twice, the first time was reverted by the maintainer, Mike Frysinger, the second time was reverted by me after discussion with Mike Doty - I am a member of the QA team, along with Mike Frysinger (cvs log -r1.6 gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa/index.xml) - No vote was ever called by the QA team that I am aware of - I am on the QA alias - Ferris McCormick, as a member of Developer Relations, has no authority over the tree and as such his request was moot - Ferris McCormick resolved this bug without so much as investigating the issue - If you look at the timestamps between Alexander's commit and his comment in the bug, Alexander's commit was first - I reacted to the message in #-commits, rather than Alexander's message on the bug and immediately began discussions with Mike Doty on the issue - I do not feel that Alexander was at fault here, as he was only doing what he was told and thought best - I didn't happen to read #166790 after comment #54 before my commit, only after Jakub decided to start his harassment in #-commits - All comments made between Alexander's commit and my own commit were not read or taken into consideration when I reverted the change - The technical underpinnings of the decision has no place in a behavioral report, but have been included here for completeness I'm sure that I have left out all kinds of other things that probably should be mentioned here, but I'm growing weary and don't feel like trying to go back over every single bug, cvs, and IRC logs at this time. If Developer Relations feels they need further information from me, they can contact me for such information or request it here and it will be provided at my earliest convenience.
(In reply to comment #54) > I would like to note that neither Ferris nor Deedra have bothered to discuss > this with me, so I would request that another member of Developer Relations who > actually wishes to come to a resolution of Jakub's attitude problem work this > report. OK, it was not enough that two (well, actually three) people wasted their time on this (I've also talked to musikc about this on IRC). You apparently need to find someone who's gonna agree that you are totally innocent here and I'm the only horrible offender who's harassing you all the time. Well, maybe you could poke vapier, he's on devrel as well (he's not in conflict resolution but that can be easily 'fixed' with a single commit to the project page *hint* *nudge* :P). > - I am a member of the QA team, along with Mike Frysinger (cvs log -r1.6 > gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa/index.xml) 18:29:41 < fmccor> spb, is or is not wolf31o2 a member of QA? 18:30:02 <@spb> well, he's on the project page 18:30:17 < fmccor> That's not what I asked. 18:30:17 <@spb> but i've never been aware of him being what you might call an active member 18:31:07 < fmccor> OK. I was surprised yesterday when he claimed to be acting as a QA emmber to overrule another QA member. 18:34:39 <@spb> sometime i'm going to clean up that project page 18:35:19 <@spb> but since glep48 says a majority of established QA members, the majority says that p.use.mask is the correct thing to do until hal can be patched to read a gzipped file 18:38:25 < fmccor> spb, have at it. I'm pretty much off that bug. > - No vote was ever called by the QA team that I am aware of > - I am on the QA alias And? You need a vote on what exactly, here? Maybe we should have a vote on using common sense and people unable to use it should be removed from QA, that'd be a nice vote. > - Ferris McCormick, as a member of Developer Relations, has no authority over > the tree and as such his request was moot > - Ferris McCormick resolved this bug without so much as investigating the issue I'm pretty sure your commit-reverting wars fall well into the devrel's scope. > - I reacted to the message in #-commits, rather than Alexander's message on the > bug and immediately began discussions with Mike Doty on the issue Yeah, it's easier to discuss my behaviour instead of the real issue at hand, isn't it? > - I didn't happen to read #166790 after comment #54 before my commit, only > after Jakub decided to start his harassment in #-commits How's that exactly relevant here? Harassment, yeah... well, I take yours and vapiers commits in this regard as a harassment as well - having tree broken for 5+ months without any good reason whatsoever, stubbornly refusing to revert something until a permanent solution is found and included upstream and claiming 'QA member' as an 'excuse' for this is just amazing. I must have missed something, since when is breaking users and default profiles on the list of QA goals? You even didn't hesitate to get council involved in this, so that even more people could waste their time on a stubborn maintainer who repeatedly refuses to fix stuff he's broken. See Bug 180440 for another, only two weeks old example of this pattern. > - All comments made between Alexander's commit and my own commit were not read > or taken into consideration when I reverted the change Well, maybe you should think first and commit later next time, it'd save us a lot of trouble. > - The technical underpinnings of the decision has no place in a behavioral > report, but have been included here for completeness No no no, it has everything to do with this whole shit fight, as noted many times above. This whole hal fiasco has really made a wonderful publicity and lots of users made a much better picture of Gentoo and the state of its QA for sure. And in the end, a QA and council member goes and uses some technical nonsense as a makebelieve for the actions that have caused this. Oh, and to top the irony, the readers here can go have a look at Bug 120088. Yeah, it was mainly you who forced the clusterfuck workaround for missing portage features into PHP eclasses - because of your releng work. Now the same releng lead goes and claims that breaking default profiles doesn't matter in the least, everything's working "exactly as designed", there's no breakage whatsover (despite being repeatedly proved wrong) and no action should be taken at all to work around the breakage. Why? Perhaps your personal fights with Stuart were much more important than the actual issues at hand. Trying to repeat this tactics yet again and get another developer retired, or what's this exactly about?
Jakub, just a friendly suggestion: it might help things go smoother if you were to not respond further on this bug (unless asked by devrel), and instead just wait for devrel to approach you in private.
Don't worry about it. I've just chosen to /ignore jakub and procmail anything from him to /dev/null, including bug comments. It is clear to me that Jakub has no intention of acting within the realms of acceptable behavior, and no amount of continual assurances from Developer Relations is going to change that. For anyone that feels that I have wasted their time, I apologize. I'm giving up on using our official agreed upon means of resolving this conflict, and will be taking matters into my own hands. Again, sorry, everyone.
more trolling by jakub: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=181110#c33
(In reply to comment #58) > more trolling by jakub: > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=181110#c33 LMAO. Get your humour sensors fixed, they've run out of uranium... :P
(In reply to comment #58) > more trolling by jakub: > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=181110#c33 > Uh, that's a joke.
here's a good example of jakub pointlessly wasting people's time: Bug 206193 he doesnt seem to realize that his job around here is: - make sure incoming bugs have good information (as they often lack things) - re-assign to the relevant herd/developer after this, it is none of his business whatsoever how the herd/developer in question choose to resolve the issue it most certainly not his job to police herds he is not a part of, make claims about situations he obviously has no information about nor was involved with, tell developers they're doing a poor job because they didnt test every possible combination under the sun, or bother developers until issues get resolved in exactly the manner/timeframe he wants if jakub did his job, there would have been all of ~4 comments: - initial reporter - jakub getting more information - reporter following up - developer fixing instead we have to wade through his crap
Bug 206188 is another.
(In reply to comment #61) > here's a good example of jakub pointlessly wasting people's time: Bug 206193 Yes, that's a great example. :) > tell developers they're doing a poor job because they didnt test every > possible combination under the sun Making sure an ebuild is actually downloadable really requires extreme testing effort. Now that you mention wasting other people's time: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2&chap=1 <snip> CVS Commit Policy * Always update the ChangeLog before you commit. </snip> <snip> Remember to always make mentions of your changes in the ChangeLog when you bump a revision and in your CVS commit message; not doing so is against policy. </snip> <snip> ChangeLog Whenever you update (or write a new) an ebuild, you must also update its (or create a new) ChangeLog. The skel.ChangeLog contains a sample ChangeLog that you can use as a basis. The purpose of the ChangeLog is to document what is being done, why it is being done, and by whom. This allows both developers and users to trace the changes made in an easy way. </snip> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=3&chap=1 <snip> Versioning and revision bumps Important: Whenever you create a new revision of an ebuild, be sure to update the ChangeLog file in the ebuild directory. Failing to do so is considered to be in very poor taste and may result in disciplinary action. </snip> <snip> Every package must be accompanied by a metadata.xml file which lists - amongst other information - what herd (and/or individual maintainers) are in charge of the package. </snip> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/misc-files/metadata/index.html <snip> All new packages *must* include a metadata.xml file which specifies at least a herd. If no herd is suitable, no-herd should be used, and at least one maintainer must be listed — however, if at all possible, find a herd willing to be listed. </snip> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/misc-files/changelog/index.html <snip> The ChangeLog should be used to record all non-trivial changes to ebuilds, including keywording changes. ... If you are changing keywords, make sure you clearly state what keywords you add or remove. "Marked stable" is a nuisance for architecture teams, even if there was only one keyword in the ebuild at the time. "Stable on all archs" isn't generally any better (and should you really be stabling on all archs?) — do you mean "all", or "all the ones that are currently keyworded"? </snip> Have a nice day.
the exact reason for Bug 206193 originally being filed is irrelevant. pointlessly copying and pasting a large swath of the developer guide also has nothing to do with the topic at hand: your misbehavior
(In reply to comment #64) > the exact reason for Bug 206193 originally being filed is irrelevant. How exactly is that irrelevant? Of course it *is* relevant for multiple reasons stated there. > pointlessly copying and pasting a large swath of the developer guide also has > nothing to do with the topic at hand: your misbehavior You know what, you are wasting lots of other people's time by not following the policies I have pasted for *exact* this reason, and then go complain about your time being wasted when you instead of fixing a straightforward issue opt to start a re-assign war instead for no reason whatsoever. You've committed a broken ebuild, you get the bug assigned, you fix it. Dead simple, works for everyone else just you need to be special it seems. (Sadly, we are missing a policy on arches removing themselves from CC on keywording/stabilization bugs - which means even more time wasted for other people with your keywording/stabilization mishandling).
how a bug gets resolved is none of your business since you are not involved in the fixing. if i choose to assign it to a herd and then fix it when i have time, that is completely the herd's and my business alone. if the herd has a problem with the way i do things, *they* would speak to me about it, not you. your function is to take care of the initial reassignment and that is it. wrt to Bug 206193, no one said there was not a bug. committing an ebuild with a bug is a common occurrence. that is why we have bugzilla. however, this is not relevant to the issue at hand. if you are unable to function properly in the development flow, then stop contributing.
