apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: svn commit: r1308135 - in /apr/apr-util/branches/1.4.x: ./ CHANGES crypto/apr_crypto.c
Date Mon, 09 Apr 2012 16:56:03 GMT
To the list; I'm sorry about the tone of this discussion. I'm sorry
about the hostility embedded in my response. For the list participants,
Branko and Jeff are right, it doesn't need to be here.  I'd respond to
one point Stefan raises and then have nothing more productive to add
to this dialog.

On 4/9/2012 11:03 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> Bill, I think your criticism is completely out of proportion to the 
> issue at hand, namely not including the trunk revision number in the 
> log message. Other commiters produce broken log messages now and then, 
> too.

We aren't discussing whether the original commit number belongs, because
the project adopted the convention of including the original commit number
and we have thousands of backports to document that practice.  We aren't
discussing whether automake solves problems, because the projects' committers
have experiences that it introduces more portability issues than it solves
in this very broad portability scope when extended beyond the use of gnu
toolchains.  We aren't discussing if mistakes will or won't be made, because
we know they will be...

I'm the first to acknowledge hundreds of mistakes out of thousands of
commits I've made here and on other ASF project repositories.  The modulo
is this; if you or any other list participant corrects me, I fix it.  If
one of you correct it for me, I thank you.  If I argue the point and then
you prove me wrong, I thank you after I apologize.

I don't observe a similar level of courtesy from this committer towards
others at this project.  I'm largely ignoring that committer's code, in
the hopes that he responds better to other committers' feedback and
criticism, and don't enter technical conversations, because I don't want
to distract and to rub him the wrong way.  I understand our lingering
animosity, and accept part of the responsibility for our ineffective

But despite my hopes, I don't see him responding better to criticism and
correction by other colleagues either, and that is why I'm concerned.
My email yesterday was in direct response to the pattern of intractable
and oppositional-defiant participation which makes the very act of
technical discussion impossible.  I'd been disconnected, watched a very
long thread about nothing escalate for no good reason.  I took away from
that thread a theme of "The Project is Wrong, I'm Right".

I'm immediately answering your message that yes, my post was unreasonably
harsh and I'm sorry for poisoning the conversation.  I'd like to see a
return to the mode where all arguments are based in substantive, technical
justification, and the mode where precedent and the choices that were made
before by the project as a whole are given the courtesy of a presumption
that they were well considered and are serving our fellow project members
well.  I'd like a return to raising corrections that don't escalate to
belligerent argument where there is no point to an argument.

I don't know if that will happen; certainly I'm sometimes part of the
problem, so I can say nothing more about this.  I hope others such as you
and Jeff can more gently redirect colleagues when folks descend into being
obstinate, and head off such escalations.  I can't have a part in that
discussion because I lack the diplomacy to have a productive impact.

Again, to you and the list, sorry for my tone.  I can't find an apology
for my frustration, however, and simply hope for the situation to improve.

View raw message