On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 21:51:18 +0200 Kai Huuhko <kai.huu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 19.03.2013 19:38, Lucas De Marchi kirjoitti: > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Kai Huuhko <kai.huu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 19.03.2013 16:01, Lucas De Marchi kirjoitti: > >>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Kai Huuhko <kai.huu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> 19.03.2013 05:48, Lucas De Marchi kirjoitti: > >>>>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Kai Huuhko <kai.huu...@gmail.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> Referring to: > >>>>>> http://git.enlightenment.org/core/efl.git/commit/?id=61ca9d550d705ea21afbe88a0af3e3cba2515314 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Next time do notify us, preferably beforehand. You broke our build with > >>>>>> this commit. > >>>>> How the hell I would know *you* were working with it? > >>>> http://git.enlightenment.org/core/efl.git/commit/?id=61ca9d550d705ea21afbe88a0af3e3cba2515314 > >>>> "First of all, if it's not tested it shouldn't be committed." > >>>> > >>>> This tells me you actually went and read the original commit message: > >>> yep > >>> > >>>> http://git.enlightenment.org/core/efl.git/commit/?id=8ecd30d578ebac46bbdf5f6d5c0b7cad1187f84f > >>>> "Add a new API to edbus to let it create an EDbus session from an > >>>> existing DBus connection. This is needed by the python bindings, was > >>>> done the same way in edbus1, so it should fit here also > >>>> NOTE: I did not test this yet, and I'm not into the edbus code, so I > >>>> please who know the code to give a look. thanks > >>> particularly this part. > >>> > >>>> NOTE2: I don't think this need Changelog and stuff as we are probably > >>>> the only users of this function, let me know if i'm wrong" > >>>> > >>>> and most likely saw the code comment: > >>>> > >>>> * @note this is a low-level function, it is meant to be used by > >>>> language > >>>> * bindings, don't use unless you know what are you doing! > >>>> > >>>> So you very well knew it was being used by the python bindings. > >>> yep... so you added a wrong API to edbus that according to your > >>> comment is not tested yet, but will be used by the python bindings. > >> Do not avert the matter from the point. > > I am not. What I did: > > > > git remote update > > git log HEAD..origin/master -- src/lib/edbus > > > > And there was a broken commit there. And a message saying it was a > > NOTE saying it was *not* tested asking for someone to take a look. I > > did and since it was wrong I reverted it. > > > > > > > >>>>> And since it was > >>>>> wrong, breaking it was really the best option. It's like a "HEADS UP, > >>>>> you are doing it wrong". > >>>> With the aforementioned knowledge the best option would have been > >>>> notifying us. You can use strong language and bash us over the head with > >>> the same way you notified about adding the API. > >> AFAIK we did, see below. > >>>> virtual trout if you like but don't go and pull the rug from under other > >>>> peoples work when you have other options available. I don't mind if the > >>>> breakage happens by incident. But if something is clearly mentioned as > >>>> being used by other EFL projects then you should either fix those other > >>>> things yourself or notify the people working on them. > >>> I'll never fix other projects if they introduced a bug in the library > >>> in order to create a bug in their software. Sorry if this bothers you, > >>> but I can't babysit all projects in e-svn or wherever they are hosted. > >>> As one of the authors of edbus I can however fix whatever is there. > >>> In a sensible workflow you would submit your change in edbus for > >>> review so you wouldn't actually depend on this API since the > >>> beginning... you decided to take the shortcut and commit, so I did. > >> Since I did not personally commit or develop the code in question I > >> cannot speak authoritatively of the process that was taking place when > >> this was added, I did however observe the conversation taking place on > >> IRC where the code was reviewed by one of the ProFUSION/Intel OTC folks. > >> So, according to my knowledge the code was reviewed and accepted. > >> > >> I am speaking here as someone whose software project was broken by your > >> commit. I am upset about the fact that the problem nor the fact that you > >> resolved it, in process breaking our stuff, was not communicated to us > > It was wrong - I asked on IRC if Dave was around - he wasn't. Then I > > wrote a lengthy commit message explaining WHY it was being reverted. > > As I said, I consider this the HEADSUP you were asking for. If you > > don't agree, sorry, but right now this is how the project is being > > handled. There's no "notification beforehand" - if you were deeply > > depending on it you can carry this patch with you until you moved to > > another implementation. > > > > What did you want? An email asking for you to fix the broken stuff? > > What would happen if another project, unrelated to yours, started > > depending on it? Would you send them an email, too? How would you know > > the projects that were depending on it? > We do have this list for that kind of communication. There is no policy > that prevents one from doing so, nor is there really one that encourages it. It's considered common courtesy (read: expected) that anyone committing to a project that they do not own or directly maintain will ask the owner to review/approve their work. There is no such rule for owners/maintainers for obvious reasons. > > I understand now that you did not want to see anything broken in your > work and reacted immediately. You did what you had to do. > > > > > >> by you in any way except in the commit message, even though you > >> perfectly had the means to do so. > >> > >> You should be aware that language bindings for the library you are > >> developing are in the immediate perimeter of your own work. Having an > >> arrogant attitude and being disrespectful towards people who contribute > >> into your work out of their generosity and kindness will not go over well. > > I think you are overreacting on it. I comprehend you got pissed > > because you were working with the assumption that this function was > > correct. But since it wasn't, the best thing to do was to remove it > > ASAP, before others started depending on it. In no moment I was > > arrogant or disrespectful to you. Sorry if it sounded like that. > I am sorry for reacting so strongly. > > > > Lucas De Marchi > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_mar _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
