We already got this discussion on the thread you mentionned David and think we ended up by recognizing some errors but only good wills from all parties.
We also got from that some process enhancements I think we would need to write down when any of us would have time. So not sure we need another thread about it. Let's get back on actual work and try to lock the process yo avoid these ambiguities again. Le 1 juil. 2017 23:52, "David Blevins" <[email protected]> a écrit : > I think it would be fair to give Andy and Romain the first responses. > > - Andy, do you see anything you may have said or did in your exchange > with Romain that you feel is not the Apache way? > > - Romain, do you see anything you may have said or did in your exchange > with Andy that you feel is not the Apache way? > > > -- > David Blevins > http://twitter.com/dblevins > http://www.tomitribe.com > > > On Jul 1, 2017, at 1:53 PM, David Blevins <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > I’ve gone through the commit@ and dev@ archives to piece together > exactly what happened on the 27th. > > > > This type of conflict is disappointing and not the Apache Way. We need > to shine a spotlight on and learn from these types of exchanges. > > > > We have some homework to do. Everyone read this exchange in detail and > with an analytical mind: > > > > - Look for and label the mistakes made > > - Focus on the behavior and not the people > > - Sleep on it, review your list, then post > > - Do not +1 people’s lists, post your own > > > > We will then have an open discussion on what is wrong with this > exchange. To my analysis I see 7 distinct issues in the exchange. > > > > > > Jun 27, 21:34 > > AG> svn commit: r1800091 > > > > Jun 27, 21:41 > > RM> svn commit: r1800092 (revert) > > > > Jun 27, 21:41 > > [dev@ list] (Fwd: svn commit: r1800091) > > RM> Please don't publish this, it breaks existing links which is > > pby sthg we don't want to do now. Pinged Ivan about it > > > > Jun 27, 21:51 > > AG> svn commit: r1800093 > > > > Jun 27, 21:56 > > RM> svn commit: r1800094 (revert) > > > > Jun 27, 22:56 > > [dev@ list] (Re: TomEE Documentation) > > RM> PS - cause it appeared unobvious on jira: we should try to > > keep current bookmarks as much as possible cause users already > > complained we changed them and it is now "done" (= we dont get > > complains anymore or very rarely) so i don't feel comfortable > > breaking it again > > > > Jun 27, 22:12 > > [Commented] (TOMEE-2078) > > AG> Romain Manni-Bucau did you seriously just overwrite my commit? > > > > Jun 27, 22:13 > > [Commented] (TOMEE-2078) > > RM> yep, sent a mail on the list explaining why we can't accept > > this patch as that when you committed (forwarding the commit mail > > to dev@) + second commit pushed build temp files (target/) which > > shouldnt be. > > > > Jun 27, 22:17 > > AG> svn commit: r1800095 > > > > Jun 27, 22:18 > > [Commented] (TOMEE-2078) > > AG> You are simply unbelievable. > > > > Jun 27, 22:19 > > [Commented] (TOMEE-2078) > > AG> This ticket is in progress, and I was working on it. How dare > > you! > > > > Jun 27, 22:20 > > [Commented] (TOMEE-2078) > > AG> What do you think the staging is for? > > > > Jun 27, 22:20 > > [Commented] (TOMEE-2078) > > RM> ...did you notice you broke bookmarks and messed up the repo? > > dont think it is being unbelievable to fix it. Also pushing a > > patch without reviewing it is not good too. > > > > Jun 27, 22:21 > > [Commented] (TOMEE-2078) > > AG> On what planet is this acceptable? > > > > Jun 27, 22:21 > > [Commented] (TOMEE-2078) > > AG> You are arrogant beyond belief! > > > > Jun 27, 22:22 > > [Commented] (TOMEE-2078) > > RM> probably the same planet where ignoring a list dicussion which > > is not finished (website structure) is acceptable :D > > > > Jun 27, 22:22 > > RM> svn commit: r1800097 (revert) > > > > Jun 27, 22:27 > > [Commented] (TOMEE-2078) > > AG> No Romain. This ticket was flagged, and with your usual > > arrogance you just trash other peoples work. I was in the process > > of reviewing it. Pushing to stage is perfectly valid. This is > > simply not acceptable. > > > > Jun 27, 22:27 > > [Commented] (TOMEE-2078) > > AG> I will be escalating this incident. > > > > Jun 27, 22:29 > > [Commented] (TOMEE-2078) > > AG> Thanks Ivan - This is a nice improvement > > > > This went on for a while and then spilled over to this thread: > > > > "Suffocating development environment" > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/1306bfc0bb78ef47517db6e3866bb7 > 50a72458796f9895545dc39cd6@%3Cdev.tomee.apache.org%3E > > > > > > > > -- > > David Blevins > > http://twitter.com/dblevins > > http://www.tomitribe.com > > > >
