Re: migrating gtk

[Morten Welinder <mortenw gnome org>]

> Your behaviour on this mailing list, and on Bugzilla, has been
> consistently rude, inconsiderate, and plain abusive of the patience
> and effort that volunteers put in the platform you're consuming.

You have absolutely no respect for the work of other volunteers to the gtk+
project or for people whose opinions aren't aligned with you.  You put a high
value on your own disruptive work, and a value of zero on anyone else.

So, yeah, I don't like you.  And you probably don't like me.

Morten








On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:15 AM, Emmanuele Bassi <ebassi gmail com> wrote:
> On 5 February 2018 at 13:19, Morten Welinder <mortenw gnome org> wrote:
> > > Considering that you usually stop short of the first step I have to
> > > ask you: what kind of "busywork" have you ever experienced?
> >
> > Here's a sample:
> > https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=694627#c7
> >
> > Yes, that was you.  What did you really gain from asking that
> > question, other than verifying that I read my email?
>
> I gained the fact that you read your email and if you're still
> experiencing the issue, or if it was accidentally fixed in the ~4
> years between your original report and me going through the open bugs
> of gobject-introspection. That's why it was marked as NEEDINFO.
>
> As soon as you replied, the bug was reinstated as NEW and will be
> migrated to the gobject-introspection repository on gitlab.gnome.org.
>
> > The more typical sample -- not recently practiced by gtk+ -- is mass
> > moving of bugs into NEEDINFO with a note saying something like
> > "This bug was reported for version x.y. Please test if it still applies.  If
> > we get no response, this bug will be closed in 30 days."
>
> Which is what Matthias has said we're going to do in the email you
> replied to — and it's also implied in the NEEDINFO state as it's used
> by GNOME projects.
>
> > The reason I call that busywork is that you can actually do as asked
> > only to repeat the whole thing in a year when no-one has looked at
> > in the meantime.  And repeat it a year after that.  And multiply all that
> > by the number of open bugs you have.
>
> Oh, I'm sorry you're *so* inconvenienced by volunteers trying to get
> the bug count under control, and cannot replicate every single set up
> from 5 years ago.
>
> > Quite frankly, the rational response to such periodic requests is to
> > simply answer "the bug is still there" without going through the work
> > of checking.
>
> So, you're basically just making shit up?
>
> That's *really* great to know, because now I won't feel compelled at
> all to act on bug reports coming from you.
>
> Next time, either don't bother, or just be a decent human being, and
> answer "I don't know".
>
> >  That's rational for the bug reporter because it preserves
> > the investment of time that was put into reporting the bug without
> > spending more maintaining an large portfolio of open bugs.
>
> That's the "rational" thing to do if you're just abusing the ecosystem
> you're taking advantage of.
>
> Again, that's a great thing to know.
>
> > > Of course it is, that's why we generally don't do that — except,
> > > maybe, for rude bug reporters.
> >
> > You really don't like to be called out, do you?  (And, yes, I know I am
> > occasionally and deliberately rude.  The email you responded to was
> > not rude; it's just that you don't take criticism well, if at all.)
>
> Your behaviour on this mailing list, and on Bugzilla, has been
> consistently rude, inconsiderate, and plain abusive of the patience
> and effort that volunteers put in the platform you're consuming.
>
> You've been called out before, multiple times, about this.
>
> Of course, you can now spin it the way you want it, and say it's me
> that doesn't like being called out. I'll just remember it for the next
> time you open a bug, explaining what *I* have to do, without even
> bothering to attach a patch. Or reply "this bug still exists" without
> testing it, because you're too busy with your own stuff.
>
> Ciao,
>  Emmanuele.
>
> > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 5:37 AM, Emmanuele Bassi <ebassi gmail com> wrote:
> > > On 4 February 2018 at 20:52, Morten Welinder <mortenw gnome org> wrote:
> > > > As a general principle, you should only ask bug reporters to do work if you
> > > > intend to do something with the answer.  Or, with other words, it really is
> > > > not nice to keep asking "is that bug still there?" until they get tired of the
> > > > busywork and leave in disgust.
> > >
> > > The busywork meaning "attaching a patch and iterating over it"?
> > > Considering that you usually stop short of the first step I have to
> > > ask you: what kind of "busywork" have you ever experienced?
> > >
> > > Of course if we get a positive response that the bug is still there
> > > we're going to migrate it and keep track of it.
> > >
> > > > With that in mind, I believe it is much nicer to just leave the old bugs there.
> > >
> > > The old bugs will be left there, but closed, so we don't need to check
> > > two bug lists, and split the maintenance resources even more.
> > >
> > > > We never got around to solving the reporter's problem, but at least we did
> > > > not add to the pain by asking them to do work and report back, only to
> > > > ignore the result of that.  Doing that is quite rude.
> > >
> > > Of course it is, that's why we generally don't do that — except,
> > > maybe, for rude bug reporters.
> > >
> > > Ciao,
> > >  Emmanuele.
>
>
>
> --
> https://www.bassi.io
> [@] ebassi [@gmail.com]