Hi I am not returning anytime soon to reactos until everthing has been restored by fireball. He has removed my commit access to reactos for the reason he dislikes my spelling and code style. He demands every thing I code, must be approve by him. So I am not coming back until this has all changed. With full restored commit access.
Magnus Olsen schrieb:
Hi I am not returning anytime soon to reactos until everthing has been restored by fireball. He has removed my commit access to reactos for the reason he dislikes my spelling and code style. He demands every thing I code, must be approve by him. So I am not coming back until this has all changed. With full restored commit access.
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
And I wondered where you are. I hope everything gets back to normal soon...
Hi, is it a way to fire up a ros-dev drama ? :-)
I indeed disabled write access of account "greatlrd" to /trunk (with exception to rostests module, and all branches and tags), because of too high commit/revert, hack-commit, untested commits ratio (just simply calculate that from a svn log, accessible by everyone), and ignore of simple reactos development rules (common sense being one of them).
However, not to discourage Magnus, I remained silent about this, and proposed a better way to work: his commits are always going into the branch, where someone (including me) could review them fix spelling and code formatting, and apply to trunk if necessary. Thus two birds would be killed with one stone: Magnus doesn't have a need to create patches, send them to someone for review, get modified patches back, reapply and then commit, but he just could commit to a branch directly and get them merged to trunk in their best shape, and not worry about trunk breakages, since having another person testing/ looking greatly reduces chances of a breakage.
For some strange reason, he accepted that as lowering his status (which I didn't intend to do, and in fact it's quite hard to harm someone's "status"). I always liked and do like Magnus as a person, and hope for an understanding from his side. His work is often great, e.g. just recently he found a bitmap bug we were trying to chase for a long time. But only a bit is needed: his code, like his text needs to be "spell-checked".
WBR, Aleksey Bragin.
On Jun 17, 2008, at 12:01 PM, Magnus Olsen wrote:
Hi I am not returning anytime soon to reactos until everthing has been restored by fireball. He has removed my commit access to reactos for the reason he dislikes my spelling and code style. He demands every thing I code, must be approve by him. So I am not coming back until this has all changed. With full restored commit access.
Aleksey Bragin ha scritto:
I indeed disabled write access of account "greatlrd" to /trunk (with exception to rostests module, and all branches and tags), because of too high commit/revert, hack-commit, untested commits ratio (just simply calculate that from a svn log, accessible by everyone), and ignore of simple reactos development rules (common sense being one of them).
I don't like the idea of developers being "granted" special status. We need a new development model, granted, but I don't like developers being singled out as guinea pigs, as a form of punishment even
However, not to discourage Magnus, I remained silent about this, and proposed a better way to work: his commits are always going into the branch, where someone (including me) could review them fix spelling and code formatting, and apply to trunk if necessary.
Yes but you don't need to remove his trunk privileges for that. Surely Magnus is a decent human being who can be reasoned with, and who could agree to that on his own free will. To me, this sets a bad precedent and raises an issue of trust
On Jun 17, 2008, at 5:45 PM, KJK::Hyperion wrote:
I don't like the idea of developers being "granted" special status. We need a new development model, granted, but I don't like developers being singled out as guinea pigs, as a form of punishment even
Indeed, I don't see any privilege in a person who has a direct access over a person who sends over patches, or a person who works on some branch.
However, not to discourage Magnus, I remained silent about this, and proposed a better way to work: his commits are always going into the branch, where someone (including me) could review them fix spelling and code formatting, and apply to trunk if necessary.
Yes but you don't need to remove his trunk privileges for that. Surely Magnus is a decent human being who can be reasoned with, and who could agree to that on his own free will. To me, this sets a bad precedent and raises an issue of trust
Yes definately, however he kept breaking our agreements. The most recent one was his work in a win32kdx branch, which he nicely did for about a week, but then once again started pumping commits into trunk, with unreadable commit messages, every further commit reverted part of previous commit, along with a formatting change, making it even harder to see what was being changed at all. All of that was done in a deep night (~4am, european time).
I must admit Magnus always listened to my rants, and he did this time too, but it always happens AFTER the commit-revert spree is done to the trunk, and I always had to spend hours regress-testing his commits, and finding the bad change in a reformat/change code mess. And also he usually kept our agreement for a limited amount of time, like this time with a branch, which lasted roughly a week.
So my cup of tolerance got overflowed, and even though Magnus promised to approve all committed patches with me, I made a decision to enforce this process by setting ACLs for reactos repository.
It was not really an issue of trust, but it's an issue of simple common sense and obeying very-very simple rule: don't *play* in an official, working, fragile branch called "trunk". I tried to ensure this by verbal and written form for the last 2 years, but now it's time to ensure this more strictly, it's quite enough of diplomacy already.
You can blame me for this, but as a project coordinator I see this as a positive decision. I never wanted to make it public (and I didn't expect it will be SO cruicial to him, like if I banned him, or if I made him leave, or anything - I just proposed my own help, my own time), but since Magnus is so angry at me, allright, here we go with a drama. Maybe we come to a consensuss.
WBR, Aleksey.
Welcome to the club, Aleksey.
Best regards, Alex Ionescu
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 9:15 AM, Aleksey Bragin aleksey@reactos.org wrote:
On Jun 17, 2008, at 5:45 PM, KJK::Hyperion wrote:
I don't like the idea of developers being "granted" special status. We need a new development model, granted, but I don't like developers being singled out as guinea pigs, as a form of punishment even
Indeed, I don't see any privilege in a person who has a direct access over a person who sends over patches, or a person who works on some branch.
However, not to discourage Magnus, I remained silent about this, and proposed a better way to work: his commits are always going into the branch, where someone (including me) could review them fix spelling and code formatting, and apply to trunk if necessary.
Yes but you don't need to remove his trunk privileges for that. Surely Magnus is a decent human being who can be reasoned with, and who could agree to that on his own free will. To me, this sets a bad precedent and raises an issue of trust
Yes definately, however he kept breaking our agreements. The most recent one was his work in a win32kdx branch, which he nicely did for about a week, but then once again started pumping commits into trunk, with unreadable commit messages, every further commit reverted part of previous commit, along with a formatting change, making it even harder to see what was being changed at all. All of that was done in a deep night (~4am, european time).
I must admit Magnus always listened to my rants, and he did this time too, but it always happens AFTER the commit-revert spree is done to the trunk, and I always had to spend hours regress-testing his commits, and finding the bad change in a reformat/change code mess. And also he usually kept our agreement for a limited amount of time, like this time with a branch, which lasted roughly a week.
So my cup of tolerance got overflowed, and even though Magnus promised to approve all committed patches with me, I made a decision to enforce this process by setting ACLs for reactos repository.
It was not really an issue of trust, but it's an issue of simple common sense and obeying very-very simple rule: don't *play* in an official, working, fragile branch called "trunk". I tried to ensure this by verbal and written form for the last 2 years, but now it's time to ensure this more strictly, it's quite enough of diplomacy already.
You can blame me for this, but as a project coordinator I see this as a positive decision. I never wanted to make it public (and I didn't expect it will be SO cruicial to him, like if I banned him, or if I made him leave, or anything - I just proposed my own help, my own time), but since Magnus is so angry at me, allright, here we go with a drama. Maybe we come to a consensuss.
WBR, Aleksey. _______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Aleksey Bragin ha scritto:
All of that was done in a deep night (~4am, european time).
which happened a grand total of 5 times (all in the same day - also in sequence, meaning they might as well be one, from the point of view of diffing) since the creation of the win32k-gdi-dx branch (33435)
I must admit Magnus always listened to my rants, and he did this time too, but it always happens AFTER the commit-revert spree
do four reverts over the span of a week (33764, 33782, 33881, 33885) count as a "spree"?
And also he usually kept our agreement for a limited amount of time, like this time with a branch, which lasted roughly a week.
surely you mean "roughly four weeks"? (33435 to 33881 - or should we set the end of the "pax greatlordiana" at harmless 33598? unrelated 33632? third-party patch 33763? MSVCRT-related commits starting from 33764? where exactly did he get uppity and forget his proper place?)
It was not really an issue of trust, but it's an issue of simple common sense and obeying very-very simple rule: don't *play* in an official, working, fragile branch called "trunk".
pretty harsh assessment of two reverts about 3 hours apart (33882 and 33886)
Is there a story here apart from what the repository can tell? Is it just a matter of perspective? bad timing? Help me here, because it really, really seems to me you are alienating away a developer with irreplaceable experience on the grounds of a bad day you had on June, 7th (with a hint of handicap discrimination, for extra flavor)
Apologies for turning the drama up to eleven, but it seems to me Magnus is getting a pretty raw deal for all he's done for us
Man, I wonder where you guys were when I was getting shit for breaking the kernel due to *valid* changes.... and cooperating.
I love Greatlord but, it's not the fact he's breaking stuff that I think Aleksey is tired off... it's breaking stuff, promising to change, and then still break stuff. Looking over commits, I don't think anyone has broken the OS more than Greatlord except myself. I also don't think anyone has committed more code than myself (And probably w3seek). So yes, there does seem to be a valid proportion. Both greatlord and I were massive regressors, but also massive changers... that doesn't make it RIGHT though. It was probably wrong even during my time... I can't get away by saying "ah yes, but my changes were correct!!!!". So I will probably say that lenience was given to me (not always though, I did get into some pretty big fights)...
Now, because Steven Edwards made a mistake and didn't punish me enough (I eventually stopped breaking stuff when I stopped being 18 years old and having no SE experience, you'll notice), does it mean history have to repeat itself? This is an age-old chidish argument "BUT HE DIDN"T GET ARRESTED!!! WHY DID I?". If the law failed to punish someone, that doesn't mean everyone gets to go free.
Greatlord's breakage of the trunk, although proportional to his commits, reflects a bigger problem -- your development model SUCKS, and you need to fix it. So I don't think Aleksey is being -unfair-... I think he's incorrectly attacking the person who "abused" the relaxed rules the most... what he should REALLY fix is the rules themselves, because any other dev in Greatlord's position would've probably acted the same. Greatlord is just being the scapegoat.
So guys, one last time.
FIX YOUR DEVELOPMENT MODEL.
Think of it:
(# of developers which you ASSUME you will lose, for having a good SE model*)
Is that bigger or less than:
(# of developers that you have lost because they got sick of regressions + # number of developers that you have lost because they got sick of being punished for doing regressions + # number or developers that you have lost because they got sick of seeing their friends punished for doing regressions)?
* Not only is this an ASSUMPTION, it's a STUPID one because this is how EVERY LARGE FOSS PROJECT WORKS.
Please, get your shit together. Use the model I gave you, as a start, or ANYTHING else than this shit.
Best regards, Alex Ionescu
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 3:36 PM, KJK::Hyperion hackbunny@reactos.com wrote:
Aleksey Bragin ha scritto:
All of that was done in a deep night (~4am, european time).
which happened a grand total of 5 times (all in the same day - also in sequence, meaning they might as well be one, from the point of view of diffing) since the creation of the win32k-gdi-dx branch (33435)
I must admit Magnus always listened to my rants, and he did this time too, but it always happens AFTER the commit-revert spree
do four reverts over the span of a week (33764, 33782, 33881, 33885) count as a "spree"?
And also he usually kept our agreement for a limited amount of time, like this time with a branch, which lasted roughly a week.
surely you mean "roughly four weeks"? (33435 to 33881 - or should we set the end of the "pax greatlordiana" at harmless 33598? unrelated 33632? third-party patch 33763? MSVCRT-related commits starting from 33764? where exactly did he get uppity and forget his proper place?)
It was not really an issue of trust, but it's an issue of simple common sense and obeying very-very simple rule: don't *play* in an official, working, fragile branch called "trunk".
pretty harsh assessment of two reverts about 3 hours apart (33882 and 33886)
Is there a story here apart from what the repository can tell? Is it just a matter of perspective? bad timing? Help me here, because it really, really seems to me you are alienating away a developer with irreplaceable experience on the grounds of a bad day you had on June, 7th (with a hint of handicap discrimination, for extra flavor)
Apologies for turning the drama up to eleven, but it seems to me Magnus is getting a pretty raw deal for all he's done for us
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Hi! No, not happy~!
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 8:38 PM, Alex Ionescu ionucu@videotron.ca wrote:
Man, I wonder where you guys were when I was getting shit for breaking the kernel due to *valid* changes.... and cooperating.
LOL! I was there giving you a hard time on IRC.. See,,, I understand where you are going with the changes so I did not go out of my way to kill your access to the project. The outcomes in the future out weight the short term. That was 2006, now we see~
I love Greatlord but, it's not the fact he's breaking stuff that I think Aleksey is tired off... it's breaking stuff, promising to change, and then still break stuff. Looking over commits, I don't think anyone has broken the OS more than Greatlord except myself. I also don't think anyone has committed more code than myself (And probably w3seek). So yes, there does seem to be a valid proportion. Both greatlord and I were massive regressors, but also massive changers... that doesn't make it RIGHT though. It was probably wrong even during my time... I can't get away by saying "ah yes, but my changes were correct!!!!". So I will probably say that lenience was given to me (not always though, I did get into some pretty big fights)...
For some reason he started committing on anger and stop testing the changes. Before I could stop him it was all done. Afterward he left IRC and was off line for awhile. So things stayed broken and I could not go fix it, since I was called in to work that day.
Greatlord's breakage of the trunk, although proportional to his commits, reflects a bigger problem -- your development model SUCKS, and you need to fix it. So I don't think Aleksey is being -unfair-... I think he's incorrectly attacking the person who "abused" the relaxed rules the most... what he should REALLY fix is the rules themselves, because any other dev in Greatlord's position would've probably acted the same. Greatlord is just being the scapegoat.
I like Magnus and he has become a good friend and project colleague. I've broken my share too and I always, oneway or another come around to fixing them. The spelling thing does come off as a bit raciest. Due to my relapse into predictive programming. The development model? I'm to busy to worry ATM. James
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 9:38 PM, Alex Ionescu ionucu@videotron.ca wrote:
Now, because Steven Edwards made a mistake and didn't punish me enough (I eventually stopped breaking stuff when I stopped being 18 years old and having no SE experience, you'll notice), does it mean history have to repeat itself? This is an age-old chidish argument "BUT HE DIDN"T GET ARRESTED!!! WHY DID I?". If the law failed to punish someone, that doesn't mean everyone gets to go free.
I don't believe you ever broke anything. =) Hell I broke the trunk badly w32api changes once years go and had to have Ge cleanup my mess.
Everybody breaks stuff at some point in time. But Fireball needs latitude. If its becoming an administration problem for him to deal with the brokeness some others need to step up and become module owners. Even if we had the module owner system fully in place it would still be his right to restrict access to the modules he owns. A argument could be made that James or someone else could manage Win32k but as I see it with Alex gone ntoskrnl is Fireballs baby. In fact the whole project is he baby until others step up and commit to taking ownership of modules and as a matter of policy if he needs to make changes, restrict access to certain parts or certain developers, so be it. If I started causing him problems in a certain module I'd expect him to start requiring all of my patches to that area go through a branch or through him directly.
I don't have too much to say on this other than I agree with both Aleksey and Alex.
Our current development model is a great model to get projects off the ground, but we've passed that stage now. We need stability, code proofing and lots and lots of testing. Magnus' commits have always been erratic and difficult to follow, so much so that he is one of the only developers who's patches I skip over in ros-diffs. (and I know I'm not the only person who does this). However, I'm unsure whether it was right to single him out. Maybe it's time to move all developers into a similar model, a model more akin to Alex's suggestion.
I sympathize with Aleksey and the testers, who I watched many times chasing their tails regress testing a broken tree due to untested commits. Commits which are mostly from the same tiny minority.
Did Aleksey make the right decision? I'm not sure. But he did make a decision, a decision which he believes is for the good of the project. I'm happy to go along with these decisions because no one else has more of the facts and is in a better decision to do so.
Ged.
-----Original Message----- From: ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org [mailto:ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org] On Behalf Of Alex Ionescu Sent: 19 June 2008 02:38 To: ReactOS Development List Subject: Re: [ros-dev] when will I return Magnus Olsen aka GreatLord
Man, I wonder where you guys were when I was getting shit for breaking the kernel due to *valid* changes.... and cooperating.
I love Greatlord but, it's not the fact he's breaking stuff that I think Aleksey is tired off... it's breaking stuff, promising to change, and then still break stuff. Looking over commits, I don't think anyone has broken the OS more than Greatlord except myself. I also don't think anyone has committed more code than myself (And probably w3seek). So yes, there does seem to be a valid proportion. Both greatlord and I were massive regressors, but also massive changers... that doesn't make it RIGHT though. It was probably wrong even during my time... I can't get away by saying "ah yes, but my changes were correct!!!!". So I will probably say that lenience was given to me (not always though, I did get into some pretty big fights)...
Now, because Steven Edwards made a mistake and didn't punish me enough (I eventually stopped breaking stuff when I stopped being 18 years old and having no SE experience, you'll notice), does it mean history have to repeat itself? This is an age-old chidish argument "BUT HE DIDN"T GET ARRESTED!!! WHY DID I?". If the law failed to punish someone, that doesn't mean everyone gets to go free.
Greatlord's breakage of the trunk, although proportional to his commits, reflects a bigger problem -- your development model SUCKS, and you need to fix it. So I don't think Aleksey is being -unfair-... I think he's incorrectly attacking the person who "abused" the relaxed rules the most... what he should REALLY fix is the rules themselves, because any other dev in Greatlord's position would've probably acted the same. Greatlord is just being the scapegoat.
So guys, one last time.
FIX YOUR DEVELOPMENT MODEL.
Think of it:
(# of developers which you ASSUME you will lose, for having a good SE model*)
Is that bigger or less than:
(# of developers that you have lost because they got sick of regressions + # number of developers that you have lost because they got sick of being punished for doing regressions + # number or developers that you have lost because they got sick of seeing their friends punished for doing regressions)?
* Not only is this an ASSUMPTION, it's a STUPID one because this is how EVERY LARGE FOSS PROJECT WORKS.
Please, get your shit together. Use the model I gave you, as a start, or ANYTHING else than this shit.
Best regards, Alex Ionescu
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 3:36 PM, KJK::Hyperion hackbunny@reactos.com wrote:
Aleksey Bragin ha scritto:
All of that was done in a deep night (~4am, european time).
which happened a grand total of 5 times (all in the same day - also in sequence, meaning they might as well be one, from the point of view of diffing) since the creation of the win32k-gdi-dx branch (33435)
I must admit Magnus always listened to my rants, and he did this time too, but it always happens AFTER the commit-revert spree
do four reverts over the span of a week (33764, 33782, 33881, 33885) count as a "spree"?
And also he usually kept our agreement for a limited amount of time, like this time with a branch, which lasted roughly a week.
surely you mean "roughly four weeks"? (33435 to 33881 - or should we set the end of the "pax greatlordiana" at harmless 33598? unrelated 33632? third-party patch 33763? MSVCRT-related commits starting from 33764? where exactly did he get uppity and forget his proper place?)
It was not really an issue of trust, but it's an issue of simple common sense and obeying very-very simple rule: don't *play* in an official, working, fragile branch called "trunk".
pretty harsh assessment of two reverts about 3 hours apart (33882 and
33886)
Is there a story here apart from what the repository can tell? Is it just a matter of perspective? bad timing? Help me here, because it really, really seems to me you are alienating away a developer with irreplaceable experience on the grounds of a bad day you had on June, 7th (with a hint of handicap discrimination, for extra flavor)
Apologies for turning the drama up to eleven, but it seems to me Magnus is getting a pretty raw deal for all he's done for us
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
_______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Alex Ionescu ha scritto:
Man, I wonder where you guys were when I was getting shit for breaking the kernel due to *valid* changes.... and cooperating.
I was in the channel arguing that you were valuable enough to overlook the occasional breakage streaks. I wasn't the asshole I am today, or I would have done more than just suggest that, whisper whisper, if you keep this up, Alex might just... maybe... you know... AHEM AHEM leave AHEM AHEM
Both greatlord and I were massive regressors, but also massive changers... that doesn't make it RIGHT though. It was probably wrong even during my time... I can't get away by saying "ah yes, but my changes were correct!!!!"
I dreaded the idea of you leaving in the middle of your activity peak. There are better ways, I'd wager, to channel a skilled developer's enthusiasm than whips and reins
FIX YOUR DEVELOPMENT MODEL.
Magnus is being singled out as a guinea pig for the new development model, as a way to make up for past wrongs (or because Aleksey had a bad day). I can't accept this, it's arbitrary and uncomfortable. I'd leave too in this situation
The standards for trunk quality are too arbitrary. All developers should have trunk rights nevertheless, for emergency fixes, but there must be standards. A checklist. Automated regression testing and continuous integration, because not everyone can test changes on all supported build and runtime environments
Hi!
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 5:49 AM, KJK::Hyperion hackbunny@reactos.com wrote:
Alex Ionescu ha scritto:
Man, I wonder where you guys were when I was getting shit for breaking the kernel due to *valid* changes.... and cooperating.
I was in the channel arguing that you were valuable enough to overlook the occasional breakage streaks. I wasn't the asshole I am today, or I would have done more than just suggest that, whisper whisper, if you keep this up, Alex might just... maybe... you know... AHEM AHEM leave AHEM AHEM
Both greatlord and I were massive regressors, but also massive changers... that doesn't make it RIGHT though. It was probably wrong even during my time... I can't get away by saying "ah yes, but my changes were correct!!!!"
I dreaded the idea of you leaving in the middle of your activity peak. There are better ways, I'd wager, to channel a skilled developer's enthusiasm than whips and reins
FIX YOUR DEVELOPMENT MODEL.
Magnus is being singled out as a guinea pig for the new development model, as a way to make up for past wrongs (or because Aleksey had a bad day). I can't accept this, it's arbitrary and uncomfortable. I'd leave too in this situation
If this is the new and improved ReactOS?,,, One reason to hate wine, so let'us become the thing we most hate.
The standards for trunk quality are too arbitrary. All developers should have trunk rights nevertheless, for emergency fixes, but there must be standards. A checklist. Automated regression testing and continuous integration, because not everyone can test changes on all supported build and runtime environments
LOL!!! HAaaahaaahahhaaaaaAAaaahh~ OMG! I just got it! If the automated testing system would, say, pass all the test in windows 2008,,,, LOL~ does that mean our patches would always fail and the automated system would, just, like kick them out anyway? Phuc! lets do it! Sounds like fun! Oh, weez a-bit see-re-usz now~
Okay, it official! The new development model is unaccepted, I'm going to use the GLP to enforce that right. It is all or nothing and a vote will not do! The consensus is a stalemate so the move is disapproved. The ONEs that disagree are welcomed to fork the tree. ReactOS stays as it always, FREE and OPEN! A collective controls the source not one.
Get back to work, we have a release coming due. James
I also respect Magnus, as person, and as a friend. And I'm not gonna keep my mouth shut and let this go on, without telling my opinion.
Aleksey Bragin wrote:
For some strange reason, he accepted that as lowering his status (which I didn't intend to do, and in fact it's quite hard to harm someone's "status").
Strange reason? Oh, really? There has been a lot of talk about more professional development and keeping trunk stable etc.... But after all this is still an open source project. Everyone does the coding for fun. Take the fun away and the coder will stop coding. Taking away commit access to trunk is like spitting directly into the developer's face. Don't expect any other reaction as Magnus'. If I were in his situation, I'd be pissed, too.
Let' talk about spelling... This is ridiculous. Wrong spelling in comments doesn't harm anyone. If you don't like it you can fix it afterwards, but there's really no need to review a patch to fix the comment spelling.
And about Magnus breaking trunk... I remember times when trunk was broken all the time again and again. I really do not see Magnus as being the one who broke it all the time. It was ntoskrnl stuff mostly. Noone ever thought about making Alex only commit to a branch. Well, you have to break an egg to make an omlett.
And now that ntoskrnl is quite stable you start getting pissed off by small regressions.. Or well, no, you got pissed off by one regression Magnus has caused, because he wasted your time. There have actually been a lot more regressions introduced recently: - Ownerdrawn menus (janderwald) - ntuser class changes (gbrunmar) - solitaire colors (tkreuzer) - broken download (pschweitzer) - crt changes (cfinck/encoded) Just to name a few. All of them being as bad or worse and being in trunk for a much longer time and probably wasting a lot more people's time finding the guilty revisions / fixing it.
Sorry, if I now sound pissed, too. I am. Because this sucks. I don't like where this is going. I don't like the idea of 1st and second class devs and being reviewed. What's next? Supervisors and group leaders, assigned tasks with deadlines and monthly reports and whatever?
You want a stable trunk - great! The question is how much are you willing to pay. Is loosing one of the old devs really in the budget?
Please rethink. Thanks, Timo
It's still misunderstood by many people, and proposed as drama in this mailing list by Magnus. As I told already, the situation is this: 1. Magnus' commits must be *at least* spellchecked, both commit messages (tortoisesvn log message embedded spellchecker seems to not be enough for him), and the code itself, from two points, comments, and actual code, some times, too. This is not because I don't like him, it's because of his specific feature. 2. I proposed to do this *myself*, thus investing my own time to help Magnus, because after all, he's my friend, as a human, not as a coder. 3. This usually worked, but the problem is that I wanted this to happen before commits enter trunk, and not after, when I was forced to do this putting away all my other things and regresstest and fix his commits ASAP, because people seem to be very pissed when trunk is in broken stage. 4. Completely ignoring my kind requests for 2 years in a row (not all of them, revert wars stopped after my complaints).
Also, you showed a bit of recent statistics. To be fair, Magnus and Colin actually fixed the AbiWord crt regression, and I was guilty in another CRT breakage too. If you look into history of his and surrounding commits (total of 2080 commits - only w3seek and ekohl have higher number of commits), what I wanted to change, is his development method (just as a recent example for now): 1. Spot some bug 2. Add some NULL checks here and there, reformat code so it looks better to him 3. Commit 4. Test 5. Problems revealed, add more checks, in fact introduce good changes, fix something else, reformat more code. 6. Commit. 7. Test. 8. Fix other revealed problems. Also fix an untested code path. 9. Commit. 10. Listen to fireballs complaints in the morning, discuss with him, clear up the code, remove unneeded NULLs check, add checks where they are really needed. 11. Get fireball to test the changes, then commit.
All of this results usually in 10 or 15 commits in a bunch, with a hard to follow commit messsages. Yes, the end result is good - bug is fixed. But with 1 bug fixed, usually more than 1 new bug is introduced. This is what I wanted to get rid of.
Another problem was in the past, thankfully Magnus listened to me, and we found common agreement. It was this way: 1. Magnus noticed a winesync somewhere in win32k, user32, gdi32 done by some other person than me or Jim (e.g. by janderwald). 2. He reverted the change, even if it was good with an embarassing commit message "wine is shit, don't sync with it". 3. The offended develeper left this field, and we are now stuck with stoneage wine code in kernel32 and win32 subsystem, getting us huge amount of bugs.
And to answer your last question, no, I hate loosing people, and I did not intend to leave. But can you tolerate other people going away due to this (those mistakes by greatlrd) problem? Or rephrasing, if Magnus's work is fun for him, can you tolerate that it makes other people's work not fun anymore? I don't, so I had to enforce this, maybe temporary, maybe not, but I had to solve this situation, as a person, responsible (I don't have any privileges in return for "project coordinator" position :) ) for the general direction of this project.
But, to sum up, thanks for your opinion and your support of Magnus. Trust me, we are friends, and I hate that I had to take this steps. Hopefully we can find a way to make Magnus work fun again. And no, I don't intend to introduce any restrictions, or direct someone what to do without backing up commercially, so it's still based on fun, always have been, and will always, hopefully, be.
WBR, Aleksey Bragin.
On Jun 18, 2008, at 11:54 PM, Timo Kreuzer wrote:
I also respect Magnus, as person, and as a friend. And I'm not gonna keep my mouth shut and let this go on, without telling my opinion.
Aleksey Bragin wrote:
For some strange reason, he accepted that as lowering his status (which I didn't intend to do, and in fact it's quite hard to harm someone's "status").
Strange reason? Oh, really? There has been a lot of talk about more professional development and keeping trunk stable etc.... But after all this is still an open source project. Everyone does the coding for fun. Take the fun away and the coder will stop coding. Taking away commit access to trunk is like spitting directly into the developer's face. Don't expect any other reaction as Magnus'. If I were in his situation, I'd be pissed, too.
Let' talk about spelling... This is ridiculous. Wrong spelling in comments doesn't harm anyone. If you don't like it you can fix it afterwards, but there's really no need to review a patch to fix the comment spelling.
And about Magnus breaking trunk... I remember times when trunk was broken all the time again and again. I really do not see Magnus as being the one who broke it all the time. It was ntoskrnl stuff mostly. Noone ever thought about making Alex only commit to a branch. Well, you have to break an egg to make an omlett.
And now that ntoskrnl is quite stable you start getting pissed off by small regressions.. Or well, no, you got pissed off by one regression Magnus has caused, because he wasted your time. There have actually been a lot more regressions introduced recently:
- Ownerdrawn menus (janderwald)
- ntuser class changes (gbrunmar)
- solitaire colors (tkreuzer)
- broken download (pschweitzer)
- crt changes (cfinck/encoded)
Just to name a few. All of them being as bad or worse and being in trunk for a much longer time and probably wasting a lot more people's time finding the guilty revisions / fixing it.
Sorry, if I now sound pissed, too. I am. Because this sucks. I don't like where this is going. I don't like the idea of 1st and second class devs and being reviewed. What's next? Supervisors and group leaders, assigned tasks with deadlines and monthly reports and whatever?
You want a stable trunk - great! The question is how much are you willing to pay. Is loosing one of the old devs really in the budget?
Please rethink. Thanks, Timo
-
Aleksey Bragin -
Alex Ionescu -
Daniel Reimer -
gedmurphy -
James Tabor -
KJK::Hyperion -
KJK::Hyperion -
Magnus Olsen -
Mario Fetka -
Steven Edwards -
Timo Kreuzer