On Mon, 22 Nov 2021, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 at 23:40, Finn Thain <fth...@linux-m68k.org> wrote: > > Anyway, thanks for taking the time to write. A competent reviewer has to > > do much more than that, but I'm not paying for competence so I suppose I'm > > asking too much. > > Please dial back the aggressive tone here, Finn: this kind of > thing is way out of line. We're all trying to help improve QEMU here, > and sniping at Mark is not constructive. >
Peter, you seem to have misunderstood what I wrote. What I said was not sniping. "Incompetent" was my conclusion after I judiciously rejected "malicious". Here's what I mean by incompetent. CONTRIBUTOR: Here's a patch. MAINTAINER: I personally don't like that pattern. End of story. CONTRIBUTOR: I don't think I'll contribute further to this project. [Everyone loses.] Now, here's what I would consider "competent": CONTRIBUTOR: Here's a patch. MAINTAINER: That pattern (I've quoted it to help further the discussion) is widely deprecated. You should use a different pattern instead. [Or read this reference. Or refer to this code.] CONTRIBUTOR: OK, I see that this really is a problem, and I see that there really is a better way. However, the antipattern is already part of existing code, and my changes don't worsen the problem, and don't require that the problem persist. MAINTAINER: You're right. My bad (I'm new to this). Since I never bothered to fix the existing antipattern, and no-one else thought it was worth fixing either, clearly it's not that important, and I should not have sought to veto your work, which is substantially unrelated, and beneficial either way. CONTRIBUTOR: No problem. [Everyone wins.] Finally, here's the background for you to ponder, in case you would like to intervene to produce a better outcome. (I think you are potentially well positioned for that.) https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/cover.1629799776.git.fth...@linux-m68k.org/ https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/cover.1632437396.git.fth...@linux-m68k.org/
