[Webkit-unassigned] [Bug 27410] [Gtk] adding GObject Language bindings auto-generator

Sat Jul 18 14:35:50 PDT 2009

https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27410

--- Comment #13 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl at lkcl.net>  2009-07-18 14:35:50 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> (In reply to comment #10)
> > (In reply to comment #8)
> > > (From update of attachment 33020 [details] [details] [details])
> > > This still needs to be broken up.
> > 
> >  ok - what would you suggest?  [bearing in mind that if you ask for anything
> > that requires development work, the answer's no]
> 
> Since you're unwilling to do further work on this patch,

 that isn't the case.  my position was stated clearly once already,
 let me see if i can find it....  nope.  too many pages to go through.

 it went something like (and this is a clearer expression, anyway):

 * yes to maintenance work
 * yes to svn update merges
 * yes to future improvements (incremental ones of course) 
 * yes to future enhancements (incremental ones of course)
 * no to "going backwards" e.g. "just Node.idl".
 * no to removing features that destroy the ability to test the overall code
 * no to removing things that make it unusable [to pyjamas developers]
 * yes to bug-fixes
 * yes to coding-standards fixes and other obvious and simple fixes

 the "yes" things are easy.  simple.  the "no" things are time-consuming.
 painful.  or... necessary.

> please stop wasting
> the time of reviewers by reposting it without modifications.

 i'm sorry that you consider it to be a waste of time.  i'm waiting
 for review comments on the actual content of the file, such as,
 for example, agreement and acceptance of the responses here:

     https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27410#c5

 or, any additional review comments.

 so i don't consider it to be a waste of time.  let's turn this around,
 and use a careful choice of words in doing so.  had the thought occurred
 that by shutting these reviews with no comments that it might be wasting
 _my_ time - by not reading my responses?

 in mirroring the thought that had occurred to you, that caused you to
 ask me to "stop wasting reviewers time", i invite you to think about
 that.

> >  you _have_ to accept the reality of the situation, some day.  which is that it
> > is simply _too painful_ for me to return to "significant development" mode on
> > this.
> 
> It's disappointing to hear that, but your unwillingness to continue work on the
> patch 

 i am perfectly willing to work on the patch - to move it _forward_, not
 backwards.

 remember that i have a responsibility to keep it in a working - and useful -
 state.

> does not mean that we should land it in the current state.  We've made
> this very clear.  We're more than happy to wait for someone to bring the patch
> up to a sufficient level of quality that we're comfortable with it being
> landed. 

 ah.

 see... here's the thing.  i am quite happy to be the person willing to
 do that - to bring it up to a level of "sufficient quality" [without
 "going backwards"].

 but, the last two reviewers have been unwilling to make any comments
 indicating what is lacking in the "quality".

 if reviewers are willing to provide reviews indicating what the lacking
 quality is, i am happy to answer them.

> >  think of a way in which this file can be reviewed - and accepted.
> 
> We've outlined several times what changes need to be made in order to make
> progress on this issue.

 then, with patience, do consider listing them here, as relevant to the
 file that's been submitted: CodeGeneratorGObject.pm.

 we can then keep track of them, in a manageable way.  i've made an
 effort in this regard, to make references to the last review comments,
 as you can see.

 i _was_ expecting that to happen [immediately] and i'm really 
 disappointed to find that we're up to comment 12 already, with
 no technical discussions entered into.

 if that _also_ turns out to be too much, then we will just have to
 think of something else.

 i am _not_ going to go away.  i am _not_ going to give up.  i am going
 to keep on and on at you, coming up with new suggestions, new ideas,
 badgering you to do the same, until you either give in and listen to my
 advice, or we come up with a workable solution that takes everyone's
 abilities and resources into account, or someone else comes in to help
 contribute.

 that's how it's going to be, i'm afraid.  i gave up on a free software
 project once and the consequences were disastrous, costing businesses
 world-wide billions of dollars.  i'm not going to give up again.

 so we think of something, ok?

 ah.

 idea.

 split CodeGeneratorGObject.pm into separate perl files.  i can then
 maintain working code and can submit files one at a time.

 what do you think?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.webkit.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.