Re: leftover branches ?
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 21:34:30 +0200 Enrico Weigelt wrote: > * Andrew Borodin schrieb: > > > > Work in progress. I'll assign it to proper ticket when it passed > > > test cycles. > > > > Do you really need these tons of branches for one task? > > They'll get removed once last cleanups are done. > How do a few temporary branches hurt you exactly ? I didn't create 5 or 6 branches at the same time for single task. > Or is it just that you personally dislike my work in general > (perhaps because mvfs does not depend on glib ?) and want it > out of sight (not just for you, but all the other devs) ? I dislike you very strange activity in the project. Most of time your activity is equal to zero. Currently, we have about 400 opened tickets. Most of them are bugs. Some of bugs are critical. Are you ready start to fix real bugs instead of implement of some optional enhancements like support of almost unused VFS? > > > Did you do any one vote on that or do you now rule alone here ? > > > > We discussed about that in Jabber room and in this list. > > As far as I remember, the consensous was that it wasn't ready > at this time (since other reworks on the vfs should come first, > which are now in for quite some time). I cannot remember any > consensous on not wanting to have 9P support ever - that's > what #1775 is all about. I can say that you will not take required votes for #1775 and #1829 from current active developers of mc. > You should NOT mix up this issue w/ my proposal to replace mc-vfs > by mvfs in the long run - that's an _completely_ different issue > and _far too early_ to take any substantiated decision on that. > > > > > Please remove that branches yourself and please don't push any > > > > mvfs-related code to the mc repo. Else your write access to the > > > > mc repo will be disabled. > > > > > > Are you sure you're officially authorized to impose those threats ? > > > > I'm one of current MC developers. > > That authorizes you to impose those threats to other devs ? Threats? No... I said you the our (active developers) consolidate opinion about your activity in project (see above). > > > Did you check back with the guy who sponsors the infrastructure ? > > > > Are you one of that sponsors? > > No, but as far as I know him personally, And what? Mafia? Ha-ha... > he's not the kind of guy who kicks offs people just for such silly reasons. Again, I don't see your real activity in bugfixing. Is this silly reason? > > > And do you think this is an appropriate reward for one of the > > > people who practically revived mc from death ? > > > > And who are that people? > > A look at the commit log / bugtracker / maillist archive should > answer that question. Where've you been about 2 years before Slava Zanko tried to revive mc from death at the end of 2008? About two years MC was almost died. Why personally YOU didn't do that? And now you come and try on the laurel wreath of mc reviver. > > > > If you develop the mc fork, please don't that in official mc server. > > > > > > In case you still didn't notice: the mvfs stuff was meant for > > > upstream on day one. > > > > Really? > > Yes. I doubt. -- Andrew ___ mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: leftover branches ?
* Andrew Borodin schrieb: > > Work in progress. I'll assign it to proper ticket when it passed > > test cycles. > > Do you really need these tons of branches for one task? They'll get removed once last cleanups are done. How do a few temporary branches hurt you exactly ? Or is it just that you personally dislike my work in general (perhaps because mvfs does not depend on glib ?) and want it out of sight (not just for you, but all the other devs) ? > > Did you do any one vote on that or do you now rule alone here ? > > We discussed about that in Jabber room and in this list. As far as I remember, the consensous was that it wasn't ready at this time (since other reworks on the vfs should come first, which are now in for quite some time). I cannot remember any consensous on not wanting to have 9P support ever - that's what #1775 is all about. You should NOT mix up this issue w/ my proposal to replace mc-vfs by mvfs in the long run - that's an _completely_ different issue and _far too early_ to take any substantiated decision on that. > > > Please remove that branches yourself and please don't push any > > > mvfs-related code to the mc repo. Else your write access to the > > > mc repo will be disabled. > > > > Are you sure you're officially authorized to impose those threats ? > > I'm one of current MC developers. That authorizes you to impose those threats to other devs ? > > Did you check back with the guy who sponsors the infrastructure ? > > Are you one of that sponsors? No, but as far as I know him personally, he's not the kind of guy who kicks offs people just for such silly reasons. > > And do you think this is an appropriate reward for one of the > > people who practically revived mc from death ? > > And who are that people? A look at the commit log / bugtracker / maillist archive should answer that question. > > > If you develop the mc fork, please don't that in official mc server. > > > > In case you still didn't notice: the mvfs stuff was meant for > > upstream on day one. > > Really? Yes. Perhaps you just weren't here these days ? Again, see above: we're talking about 9P support using the mvfs library. BTW: the changes do nothing unless explicitly enabled at compile time. cu -- -- Enrico Weigelt, metux IT service -- http://www.metux.de/ phone: +49 36207 519931 email: weig...@metux.de mobile: +49 151 27565287 icq: 210169427 skype: nekrad666 -- Embedded-Linux / Portierung / Opensource-QM / Verteilte Systeme -- ___ mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: leftover branches ?
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 08:47:30 +0200 Enrico Weigelt wrote: > > 1775_mvfs_9P > > 1775_mvfs_9P_2 > > 1775_mvfs_9P_3 > > DEV_mvfs_fish > > DEV_mvfs_local > > METUX.mvfs > > Work in progress. I'll assign it to proper ticket when it passed > test cycles. Do you really need these tons of branches for one task? > > MC dev team doesn't have any plans to use this unknown library. > > Did you do any one vote on that or do you now rule alone here ? We discussed about that in Jabber room and in this list. > > Please remove that branches yourself and please don't push any > > mvfs-related code to the mc repo. Else your write access to the > > mc repo will be disabled. > > Are you sure you're officially authorized to impose those threats ? I'm one of current MC developers. > Did you check back with the guy who sponsors the infrastructure ? Are you one of that sponsors? > And do you think this is an appropriate reward for one of the > people who practically revived mc from death ? And who are that people? > > If you develop the mc fork, please don't that in official mc server. > > In case you still didn't notice: the mvfs stuff was meant for > upstream on day one. Really? -- Andrew ___ mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: leftover branches ?
* Andrew Borodin schrieb: > And now my questions to you: > > 1775_mvfs_9P > 1775_mvfs_9P_2 > 1775_mvfs_9P_3 > DEV_mvfs_fish > DEV_mvfs_local > METUX.mvfs Work in progress. I'll assign it to proper ticket when it passed test cycles. > WTF? Why you created a lot of branches about your mvfs stuff??? Just continued the work I started about 1.5 years ago. > MC dev team doesn't have any plans to use this unknown library. Did you do any one vote on that or do you now rule alone here ? > Please remove that branches yourself and please don't push any > mvfs-related code to the mc repo. Else your write access to the > mc repo will be disabled. Are you sure you're officially authorized to impose those threats ? Did you check back with the guy who sponsors the infrastructure ? And do you think this is an appropriate reward for one of the people who practically revived mc from death ? > If you develop the mc fork, please don't that in official mc server. In case you still didn't notice: the mvfs stuff was meant for upstream on day one. cu -- -- Enrico Weigelt, metux IT service -- http://www.metux.de/ phone: +49 36207 519931 email: weig...@metux.de mobile: +49 151 27565287 icq: 210169427 skype: nekrad666 -- Embedded-Linux / Portierung / Opensource-QM / Verteilte Systeme -- ___ mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: leftover branches ?
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 00:09:08 +0200 Enrico Weigelt wrote: > there seem to be some old leftover branches: > > 1823_prev_line_def Ticket is not closed yet. > 1897_libc_return_values Removed. > should they get removed ? And now my questions to you: 1775_mvfs_9P 1775_mvfs_9P_2 1775_mvfs_9P_3 DEV_mvfs_fish DEV_mvfs_local METUX.mvfs WTF? Why you created a lot of branches about your mvfs stuff??? MC dev team doesn't have any plans to use this unknown library. Please remove that branches yourself and please don't push any mvfs-related code to the mc repo. Else your write access to the mc repo will be disabled. If you develop the mc fork, please don't that in official mc server. That's nonsense. Thanks. -- Andrew ___ mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
