On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 08:28:56AM -0800, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-11-29 at 11:42 -0300, Ernesto A. Fernández wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 08:57:46AM +0000, Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------
> > > On Tue, 28/11/17, Ernesto A. Fernández <ernesto.mnd.fernandez@gmail
> > > .com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > This does not link to the code
> > > > sample at all, in fact it links to a page
> > > > that links to a page that links to a page that
> > > > links to the pdf.
> > >
> > > I think this process is called bike-shedding - i.e. spending too
> > > much time arguing about trivial matters. The amount of (wasted)
> > > effort put into arguing about not providing pointers to relevant
> > > information. Please just put the relevant information in the next
> > > revision of the patch and re-submit.
> > Of course you ignored me, but I must insist: I would be far more
> > inclined
> > to take you seriously if you could just get your email client to send
> > replies correctly. And while you are at it, keep the lines under 80
> > characters, will you?
>
> You cannot insist. Everybody has the right to do the things in own way.
I beg to differ. From Documentation/process/email-clients.rst, lines
43-44:
"Email clients should generate and maintain References: or
In-Reply-To: headers so that mail threading is not broken."
> You are ignoring our opinions. Why do we need to change our opinions?
I have not ignored you at all, in fact I have taken the time to reply to
every single one of your opinions. I even asked you to elaborate on some
points, which you are yet to do.
The real problem here is that you expect me to take your advice blindly,
which I'm not really inclined to do given our past conversations.
> Why do we need to take into account your vision?
What vision are you talking about? This is just a bugfix. The reason my
work should be considered is because I took the trouble of replying to the
reporter, tracking down the bug and fixing their problem.
I did all that while you kept stubbornly denying that there was a bug at
all, and you actually recommended using a mount option that would have
made their files unreadable on a mac.
> What's the point to
> consider you in a serious way if you treat us like the kids?
Getting the bug fixed? That's why we are here, right?
If you don't want me to bother you with my patches anymore just say so.
I only cc'd you in this last one because you were already part of the
conversation and I thought it would be rude to remove you, but I have no
problem if you want out.
> By the way, my remarks are still the same. I don't agree this current
> state of the patch. The patch needs to be improved.
This was to be expected. I've been dealing with you for a few months now
and I have never seen you consider that you could be wrong about anything.
> Thanks,
> Vyacheslav Dubeyko.
>
>
