incubator-clerezza-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Reto Bachmann-Gmuer <reto.bachm...@trialox.org>
Subject Re: You should be happy that you get this free reviewing -- Re: [VOTE] Accept the proposed patch of CLEREZZA-540
Date Tue, 07 Jun 2011 07:03:21 GMT
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:

>
> On 6 Jun 2011, at 18:07, Reto Bachmann-Gmuer wrote:
>
> > -1 for the moment on closing the issue. (not on removing the code)
> >>  Please answer the above points carefully.
> >
> > I can of course remove the code, In understood the staement above as you
> not
> > explicitely not asking me to do so. The point is that it makes little
> > difference (apart from the couple of minutes needed for the revert): your
> -1
> > is blocking further development.
> >
> > To your claim that I did not provide an explanation for my recent -1 to
> your
> > resolution of CLEREZZA-515: A -1 without technical reasons is not valid,
> I
> > provided 5 technical reasons with my -1. I refused to give further
> > explanations and enter discussion before you removed the compatibility
> and
> > api-description breaking patch. It took you more than a week to revert
> this
> > change, this was a serious impediment on using the code in trunk.
> >
> > May I ask you to be explicit:
> >
> > [ ] I stick to my -1, but I don't mind the code staying there as long as
> no
> > new code is added depending on it
> > [ ] I want the patch for CLEREZZA-540 reverted
> > [ ] I withdraw my -1
>
> I have also provided ample technical reasons. But I am willing to look at
> your arguments (unlike your -1 on my code). The discussion seems to be
> evolving quite a lot. I want to look at this relation between JSR311 code
> and the
>
> If I may say: adding code quickly to ZZ and then closing  issues quickly
> seems like a way to bypass scrutiny.
>
> Reviewing code as you mentioned recently in CLEREZZA-516 is a lot of work
> (indeed you asked me there to do more work refactoring things, to avoid you
> having to do such reviewing). I am sure you can make a branch, like my
> bblfish branch, and work on that in the mean time.
>
> I'll be looking at your criticism of my JSR311 points and your explanation
> for why you need this next. You should be happy that you get this free
> reviewing. Criticism is expensive to purchase.
>

No Henry, it seems we're having a major misunderstanding here.

Imho, the last weeks the work in clerezza has become very annoying.

First we had your commits breaking existing functionality. Your argument was
that the existing security infrastructure is fundamentally wrong and the
broken functionality will be provided in future by some new means.

Now we're having development blocked and a lot of energy monopolized by a -1
against CLEREZZA-540. Your arguments are less against the concrete code
(which doesn't break anything) but question fundamental design decisions.

I think there should be room for rethinking the overall design but I also
think this discussion should not block development as you're enforcing it
now. The trunk is not the place to commit unfinished refactoring work to
start a discussion about the architecture. Also a -1 should not be used
without reasons pertinent to the proposed code just to question the overall
and existing architecture the proposed patch adheres to.

The product build by the Clerezza community is the sum of issues that can be
fixed and closed. Discussions around clerrezza and open issues (and commits
without closing issues) are vapour that may or may not condensate
eventually. In an iterative software development process the advancement
goes issue by issue. An issue is accepted if it brings an improvement and
doesn't break functionality, coding standards or the architecture. The
current situation with your -1 enforced discussion seems much closer to
analysis paralysis that constructive criticism.

Also I think there is a disproportion between your different kind of
contribution:

- The clerezza product is the union of 320 issues (of which 105 since you
joined Clerezza) that have been fixed and closed, 2 of these issues where
fixed and closed by you.

- Total number of vetoes since incubation: 5. Number of vetoes cast by you:
3

- Number of commits since you joined clerezza in total: 693, of which by you
108

- Share on mailing-list traffic (including jira comments, not including
replies, estimated): > 50%

To be fair I should also mention that you did a great job spreading the word
about clerezza and presenting clerezza on various occasions. But for what
the development process is concerned I really don't see reasons to be happy
about the "free reviewing" but rather to be annoyed of you blocking progress
and having a quite poor ratio between actually closed issues and restraining
others (by committing breaking code and vetoing changes)

Reto


>
> Henry
>
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message