Regarding patch acceptance policies

The fact that you make up things about haiku as project operates, on how we do reviews, put -2 on everything you dislike, remove other peoples review and when an argument has been discussed in here, you bring up the same in IRC, then bring it up as bug, is how I’ve gotten this idea. Therefore I think it is better that you work on contributing your own code instead.

I don’t believe I am making up anything about Haiku project operations. Everything I have said I believe to be how the project has “generally” operated thus far. I don’t think I’m proposing any change to that, only remarking on how I think we should continue to do the same.

I don’t “dislike” some patches for arbitrary reasons, I have what I personally believe to be serious technical objections to them, so of course I put -2 on them until they can be discussed further. This has been the general policy and strategy ever since the introduction of Gerrit. Not every developer does it, but I am far from the only one who does. Where, before now, has that ever been raised as a problem?

The only instance raised so far of removing someone else’s review was removing a +2 review for a patch that clearly needed modifications. I did not want to add a -2 on said change as I had no objections to it, just that it needed those minor changes before merging, and so removing the +2 was a safeguard against someone accidentally missing that minor (but important) changes had been requested. Where did I go wrong in doing that? What should I have done differently?

Once again, I did not open that ticket out of nowhere. There was a discussion of considerable length in IRC in which a vague consensus was reached to revisit it at a later date, and to open a ticket. I did so after the discussion concluded, and @kallisti5 then opened another related ticket after I pointed him to it. I did not open that ticket unilaterally, nor am I continuing this discussion in the face of opposition from every other developer here.

1 Like

I wrote how to fix problem in a better way and reduce boot loader maintenance cost: Nothing really difficult.

1 Like

What I am getting from this thread, and from other threads, is that it seems not a few people in the community are not merely objecting and disagreeing with my opinions in this matter, but have some significant amount of resentment and bitterness with me from past decisions and arguments or other slights, whether real or perceived.

I’m not really sure what to make of that, but it definitely is not a healthy state to be in. Bitterness that is left to fester will just tear the project apart one way or another. Please come talk to me one way or another, or start or resume a conversation, if you in some way think that I have some kind of serious flaws or acted wrongly, especially when acting with authority.

Especially since, as was announced on another thread but not yet on the official blog, I am going to be working on Haiku more-or-less full-time starting in just a few weeks, it is kind of important that the developers and community feels free to talk to me and others about whatever concerns they may have.


You -2 two of my EFI changes without any reason and pulkomandy had to tell you to remove them, you smeared (naming and shaming) the change before that for half an year when you clicked +2 and merged the same instant it was uploaded, claiming it broke everything, when it was in fact broken by another change that added an extra partition. Your behavior with other people is just not good at the moment.

Currently only you are contributing to “tear the project apart one way or another” without good reason. There are absolutely no harm of having haiku_loader.riscv in tree. It don’t break anything and not affect existing working code. Just write your code and don’t harm others.


Since there bound to be a battle here and again and again, I am just going to go ahead and recommend waddlesplash to loose his commit access and developer status. I noted his behavior several years ago when he was working on a project for haiku inc, and here we are again.

This is a situation where someone has taken to much personal emotional ownership of a collaborative project. Make no mistake, if you do not end this situation now, developers will quit and many have already decided arguing with him is not worth the effort.

That’s not to belittle his code contributions, but he has become very troublesome with his behavior as of late.

I strong urge the Haiku developer to address this situation now, act now, or this cancer will spread.

Waddlesplash can still contribute patches and have external involvement, but until he outgrows this issue, and gets some maturity and a but of humility, he should be removed from the developer pool. Maybe try a 90day revocation of commit rights and admin access.

I said what I said.

I don’t think we should go that far, but we need to start working together, and not have one person try to dictate every part of the OS or how haiku operates.


All communication I’ve seen has been very reasonable and polite so I think this is uncalled for.

Everyone calm down, this is a minor issue. If people have problems with previous patch interactions I recommend having a personal chat.


I never add a -2 without what I believe to be significant reason; if I failed to explain them in a way that other people can understand, then that’s probably on me (or maybe I neglected an explanation in haste and forgot to return to add one later.) Please do not hesitate to ask if my explanations ever do not suffice for any reason.

Probably because I just forgot I added them in the first place.

This was due to a misunderstanding on my part (or actually two misunderstandings.) I definitely apologized once the misunderstandings became apparent and offered to revert the change and reopen the Gerrit discussion…

I don’t think I claimed that? If my memory serves me, the change in question actually did fix some things, with a few slight modifications it fixed even more, and there was one specific case that was just still broken, which I asked you about looking into.

1 Like

You should always use -1 or +1 for your review, unless you are the expert of that area of code, or if it is a very urgent bug. Otherwise never use it.

Commit access and developer permissions are not needed at all to make contributions. Passing all patches through Gerrit code review will cause better acceptance from other developers and community. Revoking commit access can be considered as there are already multiple developers, not just me, that became victims of waddlesplash inappropriate behavior.


Nobody probably care about beliefs here, we are not religious organization. Code review should be based on code style, expected behavior, actual code operation and mathematical correctness, not on “beliefs”.


I am using that phrase in the sense of the common English parlance to emphasize that, while I am relatively confident in my own correctness, it is ultimately not necessarily in conformity with reality. Hence, the need for discussion and debate to determine who is correct. This indeed has nothing to do with the religious usage of the word “belief”.

I just hope that you understand that we all have different views and opinions, there is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ sometime you need to accept others views or opinions if we are going to work together, and there I hope you will improve.


So far as I can tell, I have always done that. Any position where a significant chunk of the development team disagrees with me, I may spend some time trying to convince them, but once it becomes clear that they really do understand my objections and still disagree, then we move on with whatever it is that everyone else has decided. Whenever have I failed to do that?

When it is just me against one or two other people, and the rest of the team does not weigh in either way, the argument may wind up being more drawn out, sure. But have I ever failed to yield to a consensus?

I’d argue you can improve a lot, maybe let someone else think about 3d driver approach and give others a chance.

1 Like

I never tried to block anyone else from having a chance on that. I did spend a lot of time investigating it myself and reading about how everything interacts, and started poking at the code of it, so I do know a considerable amount myself.

So when I have seen proposals from others that seem to be contrary to my understanding of how the graphics stack is (or can be) put together, or would involve a considerable amount of work more than the “minimum viable product” variation to even get started on drawing anything, then yes, I usually weigh in critically, definitely not because I’m opposed to anyone else working on it, but instead because I want to see any attempt at it succeed, or at least move towards success, and not get lost in the weeds or spend orders of magnitude more time and effort than is necessary or good.

1 Like

I think you should consider on you how can approach these discussions differently is what I am saying.


This I can concur with. Haiku has suffered for YEARS… with “two steps forward, one step back” from developers stepping on each other’s toes. Everything is working in one revision, then a new revision comes along and something is broken! Wouldn’t it be great if EVERYONE was on the same page, development-wise? As an end-user… I have more or less totally given up on Haiku being stable! I’m afraid to update, because if I do, maybe networking will be broken again! Yeah, I get it… it’s beta… just like it was alpha and pre-alpha before that… but WHEN do we get to a point where updates are something we can look forward to and not fear? When can updates be expected to improve things without breaking things?

If what x512 is doing is not harming anything, but only adding to the beneficial function of, why is there so much push back? If Haiku was a company with a CEO… like Apple’s Steve Jobs, for example… yeah I get the whole “you do what I tell you, because I pay you.”, but as has been made abundantly clear in the past, Haiku is a free field, where you do what you want, when you want, how you want, for as long as you want… and EVENTUALLY it will reach R1.

Meanwhile, x512 may just happen to have a completed (R1?) version of Haiku for RiscV long before then, because he’s doing everything himself. “One man’s vision CAN make a difference.” Right now, I’m more interested in his RiscV port than anything else. Even if I had to buy a motherboard for $600… if I can use Haiku (RiscV) overall, for everything I do in Windows… gah! I could ditch my Windows systems! Wheee!