Re: [PATCH v4 00/13] New remote-hg helper

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 2, 2012, 23:52 UTC
Message-ID: <CAMP44s2aCpYWzemMCpYJBvT0u4MDNxXge-MOCt=JV+zjyZp-3Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+39Oz7vbAwQSfL0PMjjYgQ=njQpu5i_3BSTCzznQJozKOKeXQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Thomas Adam <thomas@xteddy.org> wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> On 2 November 2012 18:39, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I disagree. The open source process works not by making favors to each
>> other, but by everyone sharing and improving the code, by
>> *collaborating*. "I review your code if you review mine", or "if you
>> by me a bear in the next conference" is not the spirit of open source,
>> although it might happen often.
>
> So shunning any attempt at explanation, and peddling your own thoughts
> over and over again, irrespective of whether you contribute code or
> not -- doesn't mean to say you're right, Felipe.

Who is saying I'm right? Certainly not me.

I have explained patches over and over, even to the point that people apparently get offended, and now you say I should explain more?

I'm sorry, but no, you cannot have your cake and eat it at the same time. Either you want me to explain things, or not.

Show 5 quoted lines

> And that's the
> fundamental issue here -- your code speaks for itself, sure, no one
> denies that, but the code is not even *half* of what makes up the
> discussion.  And so far, the surrounding context and attitude from you
> doesn't help or enhance the process under which your code is reviewed.

I would say it's the other way around, it's the attitude of other people that believe they are entitled to their opinion not being shined in a critical fashion, while at the same time being very critical themselves.

If you want to disagree, fine, but it's still the project that gets hurt, not me, reviewing code is still for the benefit of the project.

>  And no, you cannot philosophise this, or wriggle out of it through
> idealism or some other "charter" or "code of conduct" -- as reviewers
> of your code, we have to interact with you to be able to better it.

That's right, for the benefit of the project.

> But you seem very reluctant to do that.

Reluctant to what? Interact? I've answered every single question, and then some. I've also implemented tests, and addressed every criticism of this patch series however rude that criticism was thrown.

It's actually the other way around. There's a thread about netiquette, precisely to avoid certain kinds of discussion.

Show me a *single* instance where I've ignored a review comment, or whatever you mean by being reluctant to interact.

> The fact that we're even having the conversation is evident of that.

The fact that the sun raised at east and set at the west was evident that it was rotating around the Earth, but that, like many other assumptions, was wrong.

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras