Could you please take a look at bug #337329? This is not the first time I've had problems with vapier. At this point, however, I had a technical issue with him, have attempted to present the arguments why his suggested changes are wrong, but he happily accepts he simply does not give a shit, and his arguments in the bug are demonstrably untrue. I have not been able to resolve this with him myself, and I don't see any way to. I think I've simply had enough of him, which may be my problem just as well as his, but either way, I want this to stop. I would really appreciate you taking a look, to at least help get to the point where the issue becomes purely technical again.
Usually if mediation is needed then both parties are CCed to the devrel bug. Do I understand correctly that just as taking a look and commenting on that bug is enough for you?
I'm not familiar with the way devrel works. I was hoping for your help in bringing the discussion back to a certain level, after which things would be back to the original bug anyway. It doesn't matter to me whether that starts here or on the original bug. I was thinking of the original bug, but if you'd normally do that here, then that's fine with me too.
Alright, let my reply to this bug for DevRel. I've CC'ed Mike so I can address you both. Reading the associated bug, I see a regular technical discussion that seemed not particularly noteworthy, until it got escalated into this bug. As such, I'd like to invite you both for an IRC discussion on how to avoid such escalation in the future. I hope that by clearing any misunderstandings, you can settle any future divergences on your own.
i dont see any inconsistencies in my statements. i really have no idea what Harald is talking about and if anything, all i see is him crossing the line by calling my a liar. otherwise, the focus is on technical aspects and him disagreeing with the technical direction. i dont see why this bug is locked from viewing.
(In reply to comment #4) > > i dont see why this bug is locked from viewing. > DevRel bugs are by default as we want to give the opportunity of privacy. This can be opened if both parties agree.
let me know when that happens. not interested in yet another private discussion which has no need to be private.
(In reply to comment #3) > Alright, let my reply to this bug for DevRel. > > I've CC'ed Mike so I can address you both. > Reading the associated bug, I see a regular technical discussion that seemed > not particularly noteworthy, until it got escalated into this bug. > As such, I'd like to invite you both for an IRC discussion on how to avoid such > escalation in the future. I hope that by clearing any misunderstandings, you > can settle any future divergences on your own. I haven't been on IRC in ages; if it's alright with vapier and you, I'd like to ask to do that in this bug. (See below also.) But if you think IRC will work better, I'll see that I get online soon. (In reply to comment #4) > i dont see any inconsistencies in my statements. i really have no idea what > Harald is talking about and if anything, all i see is him crossing the line by > calling my a liar. I really cannot reconcile the two sentences I pointed out in the other bug. I've read them multiple times. You claim you don't care at all whether upstream wishes to change the code to behave the way you claim upstream intends the code to behave. You- "This patch changes the behaviour to the way upstream wants it" Me- "Upstream won't want that" You- "I don't care whether upstream wants it" That just doesn't work, if you continue to push the patch claiming it makes the code behave as intended by upstream. > otherwise, the focus is on technical aspects and him > disagreeing with the technical direction. No, my problem is you dismissing the technical aspects with "dash sucks" and "i don't care". My problem is with having to help out with dash because you, the maintainer, completely ignored when it broke systems. In #337329 you responded to that with "like i already told you, i could give two sh*ts when dash is broken and isnt affecting other packages." when the bug in question dealt with a failing glibc build on my system and a reported unbootable system on another system. How is that "not affecting other packages"? My problem is that after I stepped in to fix that bug, you remove the fixed version, claiming it's because debian doesn't carry it anymore, but at the same time making the new version in Gentoo different from Debian's. My problem is with you applying a patch, and shifting the responsibility for taking it upstream to me, when I'm telling you no patch is needed. Why would I want to take it upstream? Upstream's dash was fine already in this regard. My problem is with you continuing to refer to it as a bug in dash, and using that as an excuse to prevent the actual package that has a bug from getting fixed in Gentoo. I've shown you that the behaviour of dash is perfectly valid. I've shown you that upstream autoconf-archive acknowledges the code in question to be buggy, and I've submitted a patch to fix the actual bug (also upstream, and accepted there, btw). All I needed from you was to leave the bug alone. I was already doing the work to get it fixed properly. There's also a technical problem with the patch, but that can wait. I have had similar problems with you for longer. The difference is that until now, it didn't get in my way and I was able to ignore it. (In reply to comments #4, #5, #6) It's alright with me to make this bug public.
again, let me know when the bug is opened and i'll respond
(In reply to comment #8) > again, let me know when the bug is opened and i'll respond (In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comments #4, #5, #6) > > It's alright with me to make this bug public. I'm opening the bug as agreed by both parties.(In reply to comment #8) (In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #3) > I haven't been on IRC in ages; if it's alright with vapier and you, I'd like to > ask to do that in this bug. (See below also.) But if you think IRC will work > better, I'll see that I get online soon. It's my opinion that a "face-to-face" meeting or an as close as possible experience (IRC) can help clear misunderstandings, but if you both are ok with using this bug or as an alternative to exchange emails between the 3 of us, I'm ok with that. For my own enlightenment, can you both please explain to me your involvement with dash? My understanding is that Mike has been dealing with it for a long time for his role on base-system, but that he has no interest in maintaining this package. I can't see what's Harold's involvement with dash, though.
I forgot to CC vapier now that the bug is open.
the change going into dash is irrelevant. Harald made his opinion known and his simply lost. as the ultimate maintainer of dash, i get to decide the final direction. again, you may disagree, but it is what it is, and devrel does not exist to cover technical disagreements. this bug is because Harald claims i am "dishonest" and a "liar". i see no evidence of either. so unless you have any actual examples, i guess we can close this bug.
(In reply to comment #11) > the change going into dash is irrelevant. Harald made his opinion known and > his simply lost. as the ultimate maintainer of dash, i get to decide the final > direction. again, you may disagree, but it is what it is, and devrel does not > exist to cover technical disagreements. > DevRel does not indeed cover technical issues (go to QA for that) but whenever someone opens a DevRel bug there is almost certainly a communication problem somewhere as the parties were not able to resolve their differences between themselves. Our goal here is to find out why that happened and what we can do to avoid such things in the future. It's in our all our best interest to be able to communicate with each other.
(In reply to comment #9) > For my own enlightenment, can you both please explain to me your involvement > with dash? My understanding is that Mike has been dealing with it for a long > time for his role on base-system, Since uberlord's retirement, yes. > but that he has no interest in maintaining > this package. I can't see what's Harold's involvement with dash, though. I'm speaking as a user of dash. I happened to have committed something in dash recently, but that's irrelevant as far as this and the other bug are concerned. (In reply to comment #11) > the change going into dash is irrelevant. Harald made his opinion known and > his simply lost. Opinions should be based on facts. The only fact speaking in your favour is "it differs from bash", which you as dash maintainer do get to decide is enough. But you didn't decide that, you claimed falsehoods as your reasons for the patch, and continued to do so after I've explained why they're false. > as the ultimate maintainer of dash, i get to decide the final > direction. again, you may disagree, but it is what it is, and devrel does not > exist to cover technical disagreements. This bug isn't to try to get devrel to decide on whether the patch should stay or go. You're right, that's not what devrel is for. As I already said, I have more technical objections to the patch, but I will keep them out of this bug. This bug is in part because those technical objections will just get more "i don't care"s on the other bug, and your behaviour is what I'm objecting to. > this bug is because Harald claims i am "dishonest" and a "liar". i see no > evidence of either. so unless you have any actual examples, i guess we can > close this bug. I've provided my reasoning in this bug already. Would you care to respond to it?
i see still see no reasoning to back up your claims. since this is getting to be even more of a waste of my time and you would rather go the route of calling someone a "liar" instead of asking a question "i dont understand XXX", find someone else to explain things. maybe like devrel.
