Re: leftover branches ?

[Andrew Borodin <aborodin vmail ru>]

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