On 08/20/2013 10:30 AM, Geoffrey Wehrman wrote:
The problem is that the maintainer (Ben) listens to all interested parties
and does not take direction exclusively from you, Red Hat, SuSE, SGI, IBM,
Oracle, or anyone else. He is caught in the middle. Let's be open here.
The current conflict is the result of me insisting that your plan and
vision on a specific feature is not in the best interest of the community
and you do not like the direction I have presented. It is great that
you have a vision, but not everyone agrees with your vision. You are
definitely the most significant current contributor of code to XFS.
Of your recent patch set, 49 of 50 patches were accepted. And the one
patch that was not accepted, I asked for you to rework. You refused.
Mark agreed to rework your patch, and because of this Ben is accused
of making conflicting decisions based on how each change impacts SGI's
internal products, not what is in the best interests of the XFS community.
Last time I checked, SGI was an active member of the XFS community even
by your definition. Even so, I believe that the change I am requesting
will benefit the entire XFS community, not just SGI. The problem I see
here is that you are unwilling to compromise on your vision or on your
interpretation of what is best for the community.
Getting someone to rework a patch is a burden on the one making the request -
you have to convince them (or the broader list) that you have merit in your
requested changes.
Usually, the best way to influence an upstream discussion is through submission
of patches or sharing testing results. It can also be helpful to frame a request
with a solid "this is what our customers need" type of request.
Regards,
Ric
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
