Hello John, John Kehayias <john.kehay...@protonmail.com> writes:
> Dear Tomas (and CC'ing the debbugs number, co-author, and committer Z572), > > On Sun, Oct 06, 2024 at 07:52 PM, Tomas Volf wrote: > >> guix-comm...@gnu.org writes: >> >>> z572 pushed a commit to branch master >>> in repository guix. >>> >>> commit 37dede4c4d8c25a786f2a2e2a17ba54b4ba6283f >>> Author: Adam Faiz via Guix-patches via <guix-patc...@gnu.org> >>> AuthorDate: Tue Aug 6 21:07:40 2024 +0800 >> >> I have to admit I am not very happy regarding the change in the commit >> author. While I understand the change itself might have been somewhat >> trivial, I did work with upstream to merge the required changes for >> 2.0.10, so having the authorship stolen like this leaves somewhat >> unpleasant feeling. >> > > I understand your frustration and while I thank you for bringing this to > attention (we care about attribution here!), I do think this was escalated a > tiny bit in the heat of the moment. I don't see this message in the original > patch thread with the other author (Adam) and committer (Z572, still > relatively > new), so it is quite possible they didn't see this message you sent until now. > > I should say, I do think it is good to raise awareness so we can all do > better, > but I think we should try to give some benefit of the doubt and look for the > best way forward. Mistakes happen! I had accidentally lost the author of some > commits and realized after I had pushed them, raising this after with > guix-devel > and the original authors for what remedy they would like. Though everything > was > okay, I felt bad, and still do, but at least it has made me more vigilant. > Let's > remember we are all trying our best here and imagine ourselves on the other > side. > > (Side note that upstream work to help out Guix and packaging is always > welcome, so thank you for that! Though that is separate from > authorship of commits on the Guix side, of course.) Hm, there is probably little bit of misunderstanding here. Yes, I was (am) a bit sad about this happening, but I did not really meant the email as an "escalation". And I did not send it to the debbugs bug first. I was just reacting to the commit I saw in guix-commits mailing list. It explicitly has guix-devel set as Reply-To (instead of, for example, the commit author), so I assumed here (guix-devel) is where should I raise the issue. I fully understand people (me included) make mistakes and I did not (and do not) assume ill intentions here. However, re-reading my original message I do think I should have taken a second breath and tune it down a notch (or two), for failing to do that I apologize. > >> Especially since applying for commit access has a number of commits as >> one of prerequisites, having your address visible in `git log --author' >> goes from "collecting internet points" into "actually somewhat >> important". But even without that, I would still consider it not a nice >> thing to do. >> > > Part of having commit access is also accepting that mistakes will happen and > you > are expected to remedy, learn, and help us all do better (e.g. see > <https://guix.gnu.org/manual/devel/en/html_node/Commit-Access.html>). This > quality I would say is much more important than just number of contributions, > though that experience is a more quantifiable prerequisite. > > As I hope a neutral third party, in this case I would suggest reverting the > commits and then reapplying them with author/co-author set > appropriately. While I appreciate the suggestion from a neutral party, I do not insist on that. This is just one patch of many that I have sent (and hopefully will send). I would very much prefer z572 to spent time on merging new patches instead of redoing this one. Many of my patches were applied by z572, and I am grateful for their work. > I think this issue should have been brought up more directly with the > parties involved, whether or not cc-ing guix-devel helps here I can't > say. I reacted on this above already, but I will put up an explicit suggestion: Maybe the Reply-To on guix-commits should be the committer. > As I said, I at least take it as a reminder of our responsibilities > and potential mistakes when we have commit access. While I could of > course take this action myself, in following the link above, I leave > it to those involved first. > >> Have a nice day, >> Tomas > > Let me also thank you for your contributions! I look forward to one day seeing > you announced as a new committer as you continue to contribute. But I hope > when > you are on that side and make a mistake, as we all do, that you are given the > benefit of the doubt, a chance to rectify, and help us all do better. As do I :) > > John > > PS: I know tone is hard and easily (wrongly) assumed in written > communication. Let me stress that all I wrote was meant to be understanding to > your perspective and feelings (which I'm sure many would share in the same > circumstances!) while also helping us reach a mutually beneficial > remedy. I appreciate your reply and calm, neutral view point trying to find a common way forward. Thank you for weighing in. Have a nice day, Tomas -- There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
