[webkit-dev] GDOM patch spam

lkcl webkit.censorship.bypass at lkcl.net
Fri Aug 14 04:01:08 PDT 2009

"webkit-dev-owner at lists.webkit.org" 	
to me
show details
	 10:12 am (10 minutes ago) 
You are not allowed to post to this mailing list, and your message has
been automatically rejected.  If you think that your messages are
being rejected in error, contact the mailing list owner at
webkit-dev-owner at lists.webkit.org.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: lkcl <luke.leighton at gmail.com>
To: webkit-dev at lists.webkit.org
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 03:12:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [webkit-dev] Completing the goal of Webkit DOM bindings [was Re:
GDOM patch spam]

Eric Seidel-6 wrote:
> I just closed out many of the GDOM bugs for patch spam after emailing the
> author of these patches.


it falls to me, because nobody else is going to do it, to hold up a mirror
and to show you the implications of what you've just said.

you have said, "i just aggravated the process of achieving the goal of
useful and useable webkit gobject bindings , by calling the combined
contributions of many experienced developers 'Stupid Postings And Mailings'

as you work for google, is that an official position of google, to insult
martin soto's work, helmut's work, alp toker's work, my work, and many other
contributors, by calling their contributions "stupid"?

Eric Seidel-6 wrote:
> The proper process for getting code into WebKit does not involve uploading
> 15 unexplained patches at once.

this again does not contribute to the goal.  let's track it through.

1) david suggested that #16401 be split into smaller patches.

2) faithfully following the instructions and the process, you and i worked
very well together to get several of those patches to an acceptable standard

3) you asked that one of them be split further.

4) faithfully following the process, i split them further, and created a
series of patches, citing our conversation at the top of each of them.

5) having created the bugreports, i take the bugreport numbers and place
them into the CHANGELOG entries, in order to comply with the process.

6) mark rowe ignores the link to the conversation and closes all of the bugs
_before_ the attachments have been uploaded.

how _exactly_ is this _not_ faithfully following the process, eric?  this is
not a rhetorical question.

Eric Seidel-6 wrote:
>   That tends to result only in annoying
> reviewers and getting you banned from the bug tracker. :)

i know you think you are meaning well by adding a smiley, but in this
instance it's not a good indication of your state of mind.

firstly, quoting a very wise person i know: "stress is where the mind
compares the external view with the internal one; finds that the discrepancy
is too great and seeks to place blame on the EXTERNAL world".

so - let's translate what you've put:
"  That tends to result only in the reviewers comparing their view of how
the review process should be, against the way that it is being used in good
faith, having a feeling of "annoyance" and the reviewers then BLAMING the
submitter.  in fact, the reviewers feel that it is SO important that their
view of how the review process be rigidly adhered to that if anyone else
causes them a feeling of "annoyance", they will BAN that submitter from the
bug tracker.  i, eric seidel, find this to be very very funny and amusing".

how, exactly, eric, is insulting contributors by calling their contributions
"stupid", and by declaring up-front that anyone who does not stick rigidly
to a process ( a process which was never designed with such a comprehensive
contribution in mind that requires a _dozen_ separate programming skills as
well as the infinite patience of a saint ) - anyone not sticking rigidly to
the "process" will be BANNED, how exactly is this "funny"?  this is not a
rhetorical question.

much _much_ more importantly, how does such a statement _contribute_ to the
completion of the goal?

Eric Seidel-6 wrote:
> The GDOM binding patches have some history of trouble.

translation: the attitude of some of reviewers has been shockingly
disrespectful towards enthusiastic and highly skilled contributors, and they
have sought to engineer ways in which the submitters can be blamed,
outright, for absolutely everything.  the reviewers consider themselves to
be unimpeachable and above-board in every way.  the contributors have been
caught completely off-guard by the hostile attitude, and initially reacted
very badly, but after consideration decided to continue - even in the face
of absolutely shockingly bad attitudes of some of the reviewers, in the
interests of free software and in the interests of completing the goal.

summary: yeah.  trouble.

Eric Seidel-6 wrote:
> I think if anyone
> wants to work on GDOM patches they need to talk to one of the
> long-standing
> Gtk contributers and approach this one patch at a time.

great.  i will contact them, immediately.

i trust that all contributors will be given the respect that should always
go without saying, in working towards a common goal, and i trust that the
contributors will afford the same respect towards the reviewers in working
with what is an incredibly tedious, ill-defined and ill-equipped process, to
complete the goal of providing webkit with free software gobject bindings to
its DOM model.


View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/GDOM-patch-spam-tp24944390p24969868.html
Sent from the Webkit mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

More information about the webkit-dev mailing list