[Pkg-zfsonlinux-devel] Current status?

Tue May 7 13:23:57 UTC 2013

On 07/05/13 08:55, Darik Horn wrote:
> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 8:46 PM, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez
> <clopez at igalia.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm asking you right now to stop making false accusations without any proof.
> 
> I'm quoting emails, bug trackers, and commit logs.
> 

Please don't omit the relevant part

>>> ZoL is high profile, and I was notified that you copied my work
>>> without attribution into your initial submission.

You can't do such a severe accusation on a public mailing list without
giving a *strong* proof of it. So please, stop making false accusations
against me.

> 
>> Also we didn't released (yet), so any error on the package isn't a big
>> deal. Only before the upload extensive QA should be done.
> 
> This excuse perfectly illustrates the basis of our incompatibility.
> QA is a continuous process; not a checklist item that you do at
> release time or whenever else you feel like it.
> 
> 
Debian already has one of the bests QA process available. Our release
process ensures the best quality, that its why our releases are always
rock solid.

This package won't be released in stable until Jessie, which still has a
long way to go.

If you are trying to say that your QA process for your PPA is better
than the one we have in place for Debian then you are dreaming.

No matter how good is your QA. Bugs are going to happen anyway. That is
why we have experimental, unstable and testing. Our packages are given
the right time to be tested by the broad community and not only by any
synthetic test that the developer could do before the upload.

>>> 3. You left global search-and-replace artifacts at 661c4a4b, which
>>> indicates unsafe coding habits.
>>>
>> ???
>> $(MAKE) is the recommend way to call sub-makefiles. Go read:
>> https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html#MAKE-Variable
> 
> Aron fixed your mistake at 01000cbc.  It may seem unimportant, but try
> to understand why it matters, why it was noticed during review, and
> why it means that your submissions must be double-checked for
> correctness.
> 
> 
>> The way you handle /etc/hostid is broken in many ways:
> 
> You resolved a policy violation, but broke the system for some
> important 3rd party application software.  Rather, you fixated on the
> details and missed some critical side-effects.
> 
Instead of giving empty arguments maybe you should point exactly what I
broke and how.

> 
>>> Aron was acting as middle-management here because you were scoring
>>> nearly zero in code review, and I didn't want to embarrass you.
>>
>> This is actually funny :)
> 
> No, it is horrifying that you are working in filesystem code and have
> a no big deal attitude towards errors and a disdain for QA discipline.
> 

I have it. I _always_ test my code.

However I'm human and I can commit mistakes. I have no problem to
acknowledge any error and to engage in a constructive discussion if you
talk with me instead of just disrespectfully blaming me.

> 
>> I'm remembering you that I'm the owner of the ITP on Debian, therefore
>> I'm the de-facto maintainer of the package.
> 
> After all that pretense about teamwork and collaboration, getting this
> dollop of truth is extremely satisfying.
> 
> 

If I wasn't interested in collaborating I would have just refused you
from the very beginning. Keep in mind that I already did my own package
from scratch, that I ended throwing to the trash to adopt yours *only*
to try to engage you in collaborating with me.

I really tried to collaborate with you. If this didn't worked out, then
you are the only one to blame here.

>> And I have contributed to Debian more than you did in your whole life.
> 
> Perhaps, but implicit in this statement is that merit and quality are
> worth less in the Debian organization than seniority or ownership.
> 

There is nothing implicit. What this means is that collaborating with
Debian as a project (reporting bugs, submitting patches, etc..) is a
must for any developer that cares about the project as a whole.

> 
>> What's wrong with you?
>> Why do you come here to make false accusations?
>> What are you trying to do?
> 
> I want the best possible solution in Debian.  I want excellence in
> engineering.  I want the competition to be fair.  And I am very
> interested in the outcome of this project.
> 
I also want the same for Debian. But I'm not interested in competition.
I'm interested in collaboration.

> 
>> If you tried to communicate with me about the above points when I sent
>> you the merge requests, we would have get to understand each other. The
>> whole idea of sending you merge request was precisely that (discussing
>> the code _before_ merging it)
> 
> I rejected those merge requests because none of them actually fixed a
> bug or implemented an enhancement.
> 

No. You didn't reject nothing. You just ignored my e-mails with the
merge requests and you keep silent. Then you said that you were not
longer interested in collaborating with us. And now you come here just
to spread FUD.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 900 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-zfsonlinux-devel/attachments/20130507/bb4ad540/attachment.pgp>