Excellent! That means that we will test our mettle directly against someone who has no particular reason to support Haiku, and see if our arguments still hold water! And if they do, then we will go on our merry way all the more sure in the decisions we have made. And if they don’t, then we will have learned something and improved Haiku and ourselves for it. So it’s a win either way!
I couldn’t care less. I do not self censor because somebody might get butt hurt. I hope everybody do the same, because the world would be a much better place if we stick to the truth. If you don’t like what I have to say, just ignore me.
She never swear for loyalty for Haiku as I remember (me too, I free to do I want). It seems she works with FreeBSD.
2 Likes
My point being she is used to doing things her way. She might not know what is best for Haiku. FreeBSD and Linux is made up of several independent parts. That is what is wrong with them. To many chefs. Haiku’s strength is that it is homogenous.
And I don’t say that your way is the correct way (because as I have stated I don’t have the technical knowledge). I stated that I think that each developer should do things his or her way. It is then up to the community to decide to accept it or not.
As I explained in my prior post, that may actually be even better! She will have no reason to hold back or “self censor”, as you put it. So I still do not know what the issue you are seeing here is.
I replied on Gerrit attempting to give a basic defense (and here, though in somewhat different terms) as to why this is not a sustainable attitude to run a software project around. We cannot just have organic consensus, that is a recipe for projects rapidly falling apart at the slightest of disagreements.
You keep on interpreting what I write totally wrong. You are to intelligent to do that over and over. To me it feels like you are trying to manipulate what I write to suit your agenda.
I have only stated that the rules the developers have should be followed. That usually includes discussions and votes if necessary. I have not argued for “organic consensus” (whatever that means).
I am not sure how to reassure you that I am most certainly not trying to do that, so it seems somewhere we are just not understanding each other here.
Perhaps we should communicate by another medium (IRC?)
Even more, he deletes +2 reviews of other persons. Why this is even possible?
waddlesplash
Removed Code-Review+2 by Alex von Gluck IV <kallisti5@unixzen.com>
I think that it is bad practice, all changes should go through review.
1 Like
Gerrit automatically deletes +2 reviews when uploading new patchsets. Jessica’s comments on that change indicated what appeared to be some critical fixes. I didn’t have any particular objections besides those (as I didn’t review the patch in great detail), so, removing the +2 in that case seemed like the right thing to do. (Would you have preferred I simply add a -2, which would not be automatically removed on next push, instead of removing the prior +2?)
Well, at least at present, we do not have such a policy, and there are still a number of changes that are pushed directly and reviewed after the fact besides a number of my own.
This is my decision. -2 or my work. If you want to block my RISC-V work by such small reason, you can.
1 Like
i hope everyone can calm down, I suspect that there are significant cultural differences that will create different emotional responses to certain types of criticism.
I would ask that waddlesplash remove any grading on the patches, and simply go through the code review process.
2 Likes
background: Jessica is not jessicah. who is on the board of directors, Jessica is a developer from outside the project with RISC-V experience.
@X512 I still want to point out that -2 doesn’t mean anything beyond someone not wanting the patchset merged at that exact moment. (in this case, waddlesplash wanted to hear Jessica out and hear your response)
If what Jessica is saying is invalid or not inline with what we (the developers) want or agree with… it doesn’t matter.
I use -2 on my own work when it is WIP. The point system is a general rule of thumb and has no strong definitions behind it. This is how things have worked for a few years now across 100’s of developers and is nothing new for the project.
5 Likes
In addition to the above, I’ve been offering to help out on the style stuff @X512, 
I just want to be careful to not get in your way either since there are so many patches out of tree.
1 Like
@X512: My advice to you is to submit your work to Gerrit as intended and listen to the feedback you get. Most of the feedback is probably good, and you have stated that you appreciate the feedback you get. If you feel like some of the feedback you get is so wrong that you feel like you cannot stand behind it, just use your given right to commit the code directly to master. @waddlesplash do this all the time without much complaint, so that gives you precedence and equal right to do so.
My whole point of replying to your post was to give you my support that you should do what you feel is right. The last thing I want is the development community to split, or to lose developers. I have witnessed developers running over the will of other developers and the community to many times. It needs to stop.
@waddlesplash is a talanted developer who is appreciated for his work, but he needs to learn to not step over the will of other individuals. My opinion is that developers should not be allowed to overrule other developers without community consent (ie discussion and vote). I see no problem commiting directly to master, especially when Haiku do not have the resources to review all commits in reasonable timeframe, but reverting other individuals work should be forbidden unless it is to fix breakage.
Even if what @X512 want to do would not be the best way of doing it, it is the only RISC-V code that currently exists in Haiku. The developers should accept it the way he wants until some other developer steps up and writes the code in any other way. Developers answer “Patches welcome” all the time, and it applies to them as well. @X512 clearly stated before he started his work that his idea and intent was to design it this way. Let him finish his work his way and judge it when it is complete. Nothing stops other developers from suggesting and implementing another solution to the problem in the future.
9 Likes
Yes I have, and it is the way you step over other developers. It started after witnessing the way you treated Dario Casalinuovo (@Barrett). It was disgusting. You just threw him and his work under the bus in the most senseless way imaginable.
End of thread. Why are you discussing this if you don’t even understand what is being discussed here?
I think the technical discussion is interesting, the problem is it is sliding into non-technical area, either with “that’s not how other do it” arguments on one side, and “it’s my freedom to submit my code or not, and if you start to challenge it, I’m leaving” on the other. And then people admitting they have no idea about the technical discussion want to have their opinion too.
Seriously, you all behave like spoiled children here. It’s annoying everyone else.
Can we keep this discussion on the technical side instead of this useless debate that is going nowhere?
5 Likes
Even though I agree with some of your comments, you’re crossing the line here. Please stop publicly insulting others in such a rude manner, or mods will mute you to calm down.
4 Likes
So it is ok for @PulkoMandy to insult (I didn’t consider it an insult, it is your wording) my technical knowledge, but it is not ok for me to insult his wrongful interpretation of English? I copied his sentence and replaced his accusation against me with the word “English”. I used his exact words against him.
If you do not report his post, then you are a hypocrite (if you are the one that reported mine).
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others
This discussion was split from the RISC-V thread so that we could discuss non-technical issues, like processes and intent.
I want to see some guarantee that @waddlesplash will not block haiku_loader.riscv related stuff.
1 Like
Well, this is an open source project:
- you only have the guarantee that a single lead developer cannot block your contribution (no “Benevolent Dictator” in Haiku).
- as for most big open-source projects it will be discussed between the project lead developers as your contribution is significant and will have a durable impact on the riscv64 platform (and thanks for it by the way). The -2 flag by a single developer is only an indication that the contribution needs to be further discussed, and nothing else.
- if in the end your modifications are rejected (please note I am never implying they will), and you are not happy with this, feel free to fork.
I think we are really having a “storm in a tea-cup” event here due to misunderstanding on others intentions. Let’s not get too emotional to allow a constructive code review process to continue before making any definitive conclusion.
Note to the dev team: I think this is not the first time ‘-2’ is taken as a definitive rejection. Having flags like ‘blocked waiting further clarification’ or something equivalent be doable with the current review solution?
[edit = typo]
7 Likes