On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 16:51:10 +0100
Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> wrote:
> Le duodi 2 nivôse, an CCXXV, James Almer a écrit :
> > How's that addressing his concerns?
>
> The answer I would have posted directly to his remarks would have been:
>
> # > Is all this complexity really justified?
> #
> # Yes, all this complexity is really justified, including the "leaky
> # abstraction", and you would know it if you deigned look at the 45k patch
> # that comes next and spare to the question one thousandth of the time I
> # spent on it. Furthermore, making it even more complex by having it
> # generic would be incredibly stupid. Unless you have precise and/or
> # constructive remarks, the file stays as is.
That comes a bit late. We're way beyond technical issues now.
It can be noted that this reply isn't without rudeness and some fine
arrogance and boasting ("45k patch"), including calling any alternative
(i.e. whatever I _would_ have suggested) as "stupid". I suppose
everything Nicolas George does is right and perfect? It's already
thought through thoroughly, why do we even need reviews?
You ignore the finer points of my original reply too. You're replying
to one sentence only. Maybe leaving away all the other things serves
to make me look worse here? Nah, surely you would never do this.
I think I don't even want to review your patches anymore because all of
this bullshit flying into my direction. Probably what you want, we both
can be happy.
> I consider extremely rude from wm4 to have asked such naive, or rather
> passive-aggressive ("Is all this complexity really justified?" actually
> means "your crap is too complex") questions without taking the minimum
> time to observe the use of the code in the next patch. Especially since
> we had our differences in the past.
"Is all this complexity really justified?" is far from passive-aggressive.
However, it seems you have taken this comment very personally and
interpreted it straight as insult.
Asking such questions (including asking whether simpler solutions are
possible) are the whole point of patch reviews. Patch reviews are about
finding faults in patches, or finding better solutions. If not we
could just commit straight to git.
If you interpret each of those comments as personal attacks on your
honor, you might not be cut for open source development, or team work
in general.
> Ignoring wm4's comments that I consider rude instead of escalating on
> the mailing list was specifically asked to me, and I did just that.
>
> Now, maybe I was too curt in this mail:
> https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2016-November/202768.html
> Maybe; I do often do not try to rein my temper. Productive answers were
> still possible. For example:
Or you could just have replied in a civilized manner.
But I'm sure your rage seems justified to you, so your reply was ok in
your book.
> # I did not intend to be rude, and I do not consider I was. Please
> # explain your problem.
>
> Or even, to somebody neutral in private:
>
> # Please ask this asshole to give a proper reply to my review.
>
> That would have been the smart thing to do. Even just an insult would
> have been something. But instead, wm4 elected to let the situation rot
> for a month while the discussion continued. Why? Certainly because it is
> easier to complain after the fact than to be constructive before.
Oh, I did remind you. Don't try to distort the facts. According to the
ML archive, you didn't reply to my very first post. Then, over 3 weeks
later, you posted another iteration of your patch set, to which I
replied with a complaint that my comments were ignored. To that in
turn, you replied with some bullshit (not sure what else to call it).
Meanwhile I was patiently waiting for a reply responding to my
technical arguments. After all, a reply doesn't have to come
immediately. On the other hand, asking again would probably have been
replied with more bullshit. So I left it sitting.
In conclusion, you've committed the following wrongdoings:
- not initially replying
- replying with bullshit after I asked again 3 weeks later
- pushing your patch while not having replied to the review comments
So there are 3 things you did wrong. Do you deny this?
It appears you are being dishonest. This "discussion" here wasn't much
better.
Oh yeah, maybe I should have replied to your newest patch series. What
would have happened? Maybe some more rudeness from your side?
> Now, if wm4 has constructive remarks about the framequeue design or
> implementation, they can be posted and discussed. Otherwise, there is no
> reason to change anything. The code is complex and not entirely elegant,
> but all this is necessary.
Well at least you acknowledge these two points about the code.
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
