On Thu, 04 Jun 2015 17:14:08 -0400
Robert Schroll <rschroll@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This is probably ill-advised, but what they hey?
I wouldn't say it's ill-advised on your part, since you're taking no risk by supporting their behavior unconditionally. That's always quite safe and expected.
> Having read through your transcript, what I see is three developers
> trying to deal with an initially-vague bug about non-standard use
> reported against the incorrect component.
Actually the use is standard and was established long before gvfs. And actually, the file chooser is indeed the component that was misbehaving. It was only moved to another deeper component when someone familiar with the inner workings pointed out where the behavior was originating. That's hardly unusual - grasping for absolutely anything to discredit someone making a bug report? I can see why you find their behavior so easily acceptable.
> Not only do they get that
> straightened out, but Emmanuele Bassi offers to review patches for a
> project that isn't his.
Actually, they didn't straighten anything out - it was patiently explained to them, AFTER they preemptively closed the bug. That's actually the problem. The fact that it's not his project, that he has no direct knowledge of it, and that he has no ability to apply patches - why is he responding at all? I don't see anything he offered as being helpful in any way - including his offer to "review" a patch (which he didn't have the authority to include, so we all know it will be rejected further along after wasting our time, like always). Rather, he and others were merely obstructing the obvious and trivial solution. And no one from gio was taking any responsibility for the bug, asking others to fix their low-level I/O problem.
Is this all unmaintained in reality? Perhaps that is the problem. If so, just leave bug reports open until someone can address them with genuine intent.
> For this offer of help, you assert he is a liar ("Actually, you're
> being absolutely inaccurate."),
Pointing out inaccuracy is valuable, and I did not assert him to be a "liar" - you seem to be using a lot of your words, not mine. And it was him who said he wanted to be "absolutely blunt", so I was responding in turn. Whether his inaccuracy was the result of deliberate deception or gross misunderstanding I can't say, and didn't.
> an idiot ("Perhaps you should review what a dependency is."),
That is a quote out of context, as I followed with an example in their docs describing the accurate situation. I don't see someone with a gross misunderstanding as an "idiot", and I did not call anyone such names. But I was expressing dissatisfaction with his distortions and/or misunderstandings (how do I know what he knows or doesn't know when he makes such ill-informed statements?) Characterizing simple dissatisfaction or disagreement as "personal attacks", or equating it to calling someone an "idiot", is exactly the problem, which you're repeating in your completely biased defense of them. It is misuse of a code of conduct intended to thwart genuine abuse, using it for censorship of ideas, and to threaten people into agreement or silence.
> and part of a conspiracy ("Red Hat has done
> everything in their power to break that separation and create a
> monolithic stack").
Hardly a conspiracy, it's simply stating history. Red Hat pushing gvfs is hardly hidden (though they seem to want it to be in bug reports like this). You are just trying to use ridicule to distort, going for the ever-popular "conspiracy" word, which I never used or implied - an agenda is not necessarily a conspiracy. I dealt in simple statements of my interpretation of that corporation's past and continuing actions, very limited in scope to that bug and the (mis)information which was being presented. You, I and others well know what events are being referred to - it's no secret what Red Hat did with gvfs and GTK plans, and then backtracked when there were massive complaints and problems. They have hardly been playing well with others.
> Andre Klapper hides this unproductive comment
It's not unproductive to address misinformation and to disclose conflicts of interest, which is also what this is really a case of.
Hope that clarifies for you the problems inherent in their conduct. For your part, I must say I'm not impressed by your efforts to whitewash such misconduct, or by your heavily contrived reasoning. Perhaps you should disclose any conflicts of interest of your own, and why you are so accepting of such administrative misconduct and abuse of position. I find it hard to take seriously, except as trying to support them unconditionally, overlooking salient points.
For example, I notice you didn't mention the use of the word "overengineered" as being grounds for threats.
_______________________________________________
gtk-list mailing list
gtk-list@xxxxxxxxx
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-list
