On 7 May 2013 14:10, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 7:45 AM, janI <j...@apache.org> wrote: > > On 7 May 2013 12:43, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 3:14 AM, janI <j...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > Hi > >> > > >> > I have now read this thread twice, and see a to me well known pattern. > >> > > >> > >> But have you read the history of the BZ issue? > >> > > yes > > > >> > >> > @pedro, I do agree with rob, that you might have choosen your comment > >> more > >> > wisely, that said you are the expert on the subject, so if you change > the > >> > status to "WONTFIX" it is a complely correct action. The issue is > still > >> > seachable in the database, but you signal to everybody this will not > be > >> > fixed (some day in future, somebody might solve a similar issue). I do > >> > exactly the same with the fields (mwiki) where I feel confident, and > only > >> > asks for others opinion if I am in doubt. > >> > > >> > >> 1. No one in their right mind searches for issues marked "WONTFIX". > >> That is where we hide issues that no one should work on. For example, > >> if some functionality is odd but it is needed for standards > >> compatibility or for backwards compatibility we mark it WONTFIX to > >> signify that the issue is real but there are important reasons why the > >> functionality cannot be changed. It does not mean that Committer X > >> will not fix it. Remember, the issue was entered with an explicit > >> statement that Pedro was not going to work on it. So it is incorrect > >> to say that the issue is in any sense findable once it is marked > >> WONTFIX. > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > I hope you will reconsider, this list and community is not (yet) > >> completely > >> > dominated by the opinion of any single person, but if everybody > withdraws > >> > when being lectured, it soon will be. We badly need motivated, > critical > >> > members. > >> > > >> > @rob, please dont misunderstand me, I respect you for the awfull > amount > >> of > >> > positive work you do for AOO, but I hope you will consider (no need to > >> > reply to my mail just in private), which of the following 2 options > you > >> > think are the better option for our community: > >> > > >> > a) we allow bullying/lecturing our fellow committers, causing the > >> committer > >> > to withdraw and the community in praxis looses a motivated committer. > >> > > >> > b) we accept the expert choise of our fellow committers, even though > we > >> > personally might not agree, and keep a motivated committer that works > >> > actively. > >> > > >> > >> If you the BZ history you would have seen that I reopened the BZ after > >> Pedro closed it, and I gave a detailed justification why. Pedro then > >> immediately re-closed it. Where is my expert opinion considered here? > >> Remember, I am the one who set up the "easy fixes' mechanism in BZ so > >> new coders have some tasks to work on. So that task depends on > >> curating a set of BZ issues that are meaningful but no one was working > >> on. In my expert opinion this could be one such task. So why are you > >> denying me my opinion? > >> > > > > I am in no way denying you having on opinion, on the contrary I think it > > is good to have opions....I just believe we should all be able to air > our > > opinions and have our views, with respect for each other. And if I may > add > > I feel (now being one myself) the PMC group have an extra obligation to > > restrain ourself, and give others quite some leeway. > > > > Mail "wars" are not positive for the community, indepent of who is > > right....they are much more destructive than the subject itself. > Bascially > > we can all stop such a "war" typically by stopping and thinking...is this > > issue really so important to the community. > > > > > >> > >> Pedro's concerns can easily be met by adding an informative comment. > >> Mine cannot be met in any way by burying the issue as "Won't Fix" > >> > > > > > > I have put several mwiki bugs on WONTFIX (in accordance with the > lifecycle > > definition), one example "cleanup japanese mwiki", I commented the bug > > waited 72 hours, no one responded...so I changed state to "WONTFIX", this > > is however for sure one of your easy tasks for a japanese volunteer. > > > > If we are not allowed to put issues to WONTFIX, then we for another > > status, like WILLNOTBEFIXEDBYTHECURRENTAVIA > > BLEEXPERTS or POTENTIALCANDIDATEFORANEWPERSON. When I work with BZ I want > > to see the active bugs I can do with (inside my "responsibility" field) > and > > not a lot of noise. > > > > > Unfortunately that is not how Bugzilla works. In issue has one > status and one status only and we cannot assign a special status to a > bug so that it is not visible to only for you or only for Pedro. > > The process for marking something "Won't fix" is documented on the wiki: > > "In case of a feature request: If you think, it should not be > implemented, discuss this on the mailing list and if your opinion gets > consensus, set the status to RESOLVED with reason WONTFIX. Explain the > reason in the comment and put the link to the discussion in field URL. > Close the issue. " > > http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Issue_lifecycle > > Pedro did not follow the process. He didn't bring it to the list and > he never gave a explanation. I helped Pedro approach closer to the > process by bringing the issue to the mailing list. And I stated good > reasons (IMHO) why the issue should remain open. > > I disagree with you that we should disregard the issue resolution > process issues in BZ merely to appease egos in this project. That > approach is doomed to fail since there is more than one ego in the > project and there will always be disagreements. The process defines > how these differences of opinions are resolved, namely by seeking > consensus here on the list. > > -Rob >
Admitted english must a very complicated language to master...it seems I did not make myself understandable. I cannot disagree with your standpoint....if I were an administrator, being a developer, I want a vibrant free running culture within frames. Pursuing this matter further at the moment, will not bring us further, so I jump off again. rgds jan I. > > >> > >> As soon as it was evident that Pedro was engaging in an editing war in > >> BZ I brought the issue here to the dev list. That was the proper > >> thing to do. > >> > > > > Correct no doubt about it...that is one of the purposes of the list. But > > remembering the situation we as a community are in, our words should be > > choosen carefully....in general we should try to motivate people to do > the > > right thing by being positive and open. > > > > > > > >> > >> > I have no doubt that I prefer b), it really doesnt matter if a > database > >> > field is set to WONTFIX, it stayes searchable, compared to having > somone > >> > actively working on making AOO a better product and community. > >> > > >> > >> Is this really and either/or thing? > >> > > > > Nice play with words...of course it is not. But fact is we want our > > community to grow, and in order to that, everybody need to feel its fun > > being here. > > > > Putting a couple of issues on WONTFIX, by a specialist in the area is > not a > > concern I have, pr definition I trust my fellow committers and their > > judgment. > > > > For new coders (C++, make etc.) we have more than enough tasks, if you > come > > with the C++ coders, I promise within 24 hours to supply them with tasks > in > > l10ntools (they are not entered in BZ, because next week I have worked > some > > more, and have other small projects). Our main problem is not the > "WONTFIX" > > it is a lot more that we do not attract C++ coders, and being one myself > I > > have an idea why that is, but that is another theme. > > > >> > >> > During my time in AOO, we have added 3 committers and by using a) and > 2 > >> > have at least reduced their work heavely. > >> > > >> > I do believe we all try to do our best in our own way, but lets please > >> use > >> > the energy to make a better product, not to fight each other. > >> > > >> > >> So are you saying that closing BZ issues with the sole comment "There > >> seems to be little interest in this" is "actively working on making > >> AOO a better product and community?" Really? What about someone who > >> then reopens the issue because it is a legitimate issue that could be > >> a good candidate for a new coder? Is that then, in your book, > >> working against the community? And then what about the person who > >> immediately re-closes the issue without discussion? > >> > > > > No, I actually wrote in the top, that I agree with you, pedros comment > was > > not correct (I also agree that he could in general use a more postive > > language). > > > > I take your word for that this issue is good for a new coder....and at > the > > same time I am disapointed with myself, because I cannot climb the ladder > > you set for new coders. I would not take that issue with my current > > knowledge, that I thought was levels away from being a new coder. > > > > A member of our community disapointed is a lost hand (or part of), while > a > > member being motivated can work wonders. Let Pedro (and me) have his > > WONTFIX, and challenge us all instead to make new issues...just remember > > one thing, when people like me take time to enter issues, I would be > > disapointed if there are no one around to catch any of the issues. > > > > I am not trying to start a new long discussion, the only reason I > responded > > to the thread was because I felt a deja vue from earlier threads where I > > was involved...I highly agree with your intentions, but please lets stop > > word hacking...and do some real hacking instead !!!! > > > > have a nice day. > > jan I. > > > > > >> Regards, > >> > >> -Rob > >> > >> > this just being my 2cent. > >> > > >> > Jan I. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On 7 May 2013 04:48, Pedro Giffuni <p...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> I don't have time for this if you really want to keep open a BZ issue > >> for > >> >> a feature > >> >> no one is working on, I am OK with that. > >> >> > >> >> I will try to avoid updating the state of my bug reports from now on > to > >> >> avoid > >> >> these threads that you seem to like so much. > >> >> > >> >> Pedro. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> ----- Messaggio originale ----- > >> >> > Da: Rob Weir > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > On May 6, 2013, at 8:03 PM, Pedro Giffuni <p...@apache.org> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> ----- Messaggio originale ----- > >> >> >>> Da: Rob Weir > >> >> >> ... > >> >> >>> The fact that you wrote the issue initially is not relevant to > >> whether > >> >> >>> the issue is marked "won't fix" or not. That field is > >> >> > not for > >> >> >>> entering your personal opinion. It is for expressing the > project's > >> >> >>> consensus for how the issue is handled. Of course, you are > >> welcome to > >> >> >>> enter your personal opinion as a comment. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> It is my personal and technical opinion that it should be > labelled > >> WONT > >> >> >> FIX. If your expert opinion is different I encourage you to grab > the > >> >> issue > >> >> >> and *then* reopen it. If the project is really lucky you can even > >> >> prove me > >> >> >> wrong ;) > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > Then I invite you to provide a technical explanation for this > rather > >> >> > than the "it seems that no one is interested in this" comment that > you > >> >> > gave when you closed the issue. You must agree that this was not a > >> >> > technical reason. Nor was it one when you said you closed it > because > >> >> > you didn't want to receive notifications about it, nor was it a > >> >> > technical justification when you said you didn't want someone to > >> >> > accidentally commit it, nor when you suggested that you were > >> >> > withdrawing permission to use the patch. After spending much time > >> >> > reading your comments I still have no clue what exactly your > technical > >> >> > concerns are. > >> >> > > >> >> > As you wrote initially in the issue, this is only a prototype. I > think > >> >> > it is clear that it was not finished work. I don't think someone > would > >> >> > accidentally commit it as-is. But if you think additional caveats > are > >> >> > warranted then please add them as comments to the issue. That's > where > >> >> > they belong. That's where they will do the most good. But if the > >> >> > reason for the issue remains valid, i.e., that Boost has faster > stats > >> >> > code than what we have now, then the issue itself should remain > open. > >> >> > > >> >> > Of course if you were in error in your earlier analysis, and Boost > is > >> >> > not faster then by all means give that explanation and mark the > issue > >> >> > as INVALID. But please don't give a comment of "no one seems > >> >> > interested" and then starting deleting stuff. What we have in BZ > is > >> >> > an important record of issues and opportunities in the code and > >> >> > marking something "Won't Fix" when the underlying issue is still > >> >> > valid > >> >> > is not right. > >> >> > > >> >> > Regards, > >> >> > > >> >> > Rob > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>>> I guess will only comment on the withdrawn patch: > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> The withdrawal doesn't have anything to do with how long the > >> >> >>>> patch has been available, I just don't think it should be > >> >> >>>> committed by accident. > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> Last time I knew, the ASF policy is not to take anything that > the > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> author (me in this case) doesn't want taken so I expect if > >> >> > someone > >> >> >>>> wants it he/she can ask me about it and I may even give one or > two > >> >> >>>> new hints about it :). > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> This is true for non-committers. But committers have submitted > an > >> >> >>> ICLA and have already promised, in writing, that when they offer > >> >> >>> patches that the ASF has permission to use the code. I'd > recommend > >> >> >>> thinking carefully about reneging on that promise. If your > issue > >> is > >> >> >>> only whether someone commits your patch without review then I > >> >> >>> recommend that you explain that in a comment to the issue. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> The icla applies to my contributions to the project and it is > >> perfectly > >> >> >> valid since the moment I signed it, that hasn't changed. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Do keep in mind that if I had thought it was a good idea to > commit > >> >> >> the patch I would have just done it, like I did with so many > patches > >> >> >> before. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> After thinking about it for a while I think I was right not to > >> commit > >> >> it > >> >> >> in the first place. I still think the issue should be labelled > WONT > >> >> FIX. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> The patch is withdrawn for good reasons but if you want to spend > >> time > >> >> >> on it be my guest, and yes the project has permission to use my > >> patch > >> >> >> under ALv2. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Pedro. > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >> > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >
