<!DOCTYPE html>
<html data-lt-installed="true">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body style="padding-bottom: 1px;">
<p>Hello,<br>
<br>
I would like to report Prince Gupta (@jagannatharjun) for
potential Code of Conduct violation regarding his comment where he
accused me of "demeaning others" and engaging in so-called "d*ck
measuring contests":
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://code.videolan.org/videolan/vlc/-/merge_requests/5864#note_451556">https://code.videolan.org/videolan/vlc/-/merge_requests/5864#note_451556</a>.<br>
<br>
The subject merge request was merged on Aug 7 2024 and
single-handedly caused 5 regressions (that are easily noticeable)
with mere +12,-10 lines of change. I commented with "It is pretty
obvious that this merge request has never been tested properly. It
deserves to be nominated as the worst merge request since ...",
because I believe that we have higher standards than that here at
VLC-devel. We are in the same ship, if causing 5 regressions with
such small changes becomes a norm, we are going to have major
issues since all of us and not solely the author are going to be
blamed for the quality of the product.<br>
<br>
Some might blame me for taking a direct approach of expressing my
dissatisfaction in such a manner. I believe that if something is
bad, we should say that it is bad otherwise it is never going to
be fixed. And the means of expression or tone of feedback should
be proportional to the cause. I'm not saying that the author
should be punished, even though if an engineer causes collapse of
a bridge due to his own fault he would (and should) be accountable
for that mistake in court, but the author definitely owes a public
apology to the whole team if a small change causes a lot of
regressions due to lack of attention.<br>
<br>
Instead of taking criticism, and apologizing for stalling the
development, he insulted me and created a faulty revert of a
revert (!5940) that does not even correct the regressions. I don't
think this is acceptable. The log of conversations is attached.<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
Fatih<br>
<br>
Fatih Uzunoğlu @fuzun · 2 weeks ago<br>
> It is pretty obvious that this merge request has never been
tested properly. It single-handedly caused at least 4 regressions,
it deserves to be nominated as the worst merge request since !3385
(merged).<br>
<br>
Prince Gupta @jagannatharjun · 1 week ago<br>
> This kind of exaggerated and unhelpful comment has happened
more than once, and it's getting old. Claiming the merge request
"has never been tested properly" is baseless and dismisses the
work that went into it. Regressions are a normal part of
development and should be addressed with specific, constructive
feedback—not dramatic statements.<br>
> Labeling this as the "worst merge request" is neither
accurate nor professional. If you have real concerns, address them
directly. This kind of repeated negativity is not productive and
needs to stop.<br>
<br>
Fatih Uzunoğlu @fuzun · 1 week ago<br>
> If you actually tested this merge request but did not notice
any of these five regressions, then this is gross incompetence,
which is worse.<br>
> 1 regression is okay, 2 is tolerable. There is no way 5
regressions is "normal part of development".<br>
> If there is another Qt merge request that caused five
regressions since !3385 (merged) I will take back my word and
apologize for inaccuracy.<br>
<br>
Prince Gupta @jagannatharjun · 1 week ago<br>
> Almost all of them depends on some small intricacies of
implementation which I was not aware of since I don't work on this
part of UI and is mostly worked by you. You could've helped me and
everyone can enjoy contributing to the project but no you would
prefer to demean others only so that you can look good.<br>
> Your Qt6 migration, many parts of the UI still remain broken.
You're making it a d*ck measuring contest, which I will not be
part of and I will not comment on this topic anymore.<br>
<br>
Fatih Uzunoğlu @fuzun · 1 week ago<br>
> That's what I did in !5921 (merged) (fixing the issues you
created), which was no-one but your responsibility. But you
sabotaged my request by opening a thread without justification and
essentially created revert of a revert in !5940.<br>
> If you happen to spot an issue, you are supposed to create an
issue instead of complaining in a completely irrelevant merge
request. Not to mention, it is utter nonsense to compare these two
merge requests.<br>
> I will not comment on your insults, that will be reported to
the administration.<br>
<br>
Prince Gupta @jagannatharjun · 1 week ago<br>
> That's not fixing but, you just revert the changes without
looking into actual issues and discussion. !5921 (merged)
completely ignores the aim of this MR. !5940 has actual fixes.<br>
> What's the issue with the thread I opened? How trying to
start a discussion a sabotage?<br>
<br>
Fatih Uzunoğlu @fuzun · 1 week ago<br>
> Reverting your changes fixes all the issues I opened, so
that's actual fixing. Additionally, I also covered the fallback
case when the image fails to load.<br>
On the other hand, !5940 tries to fix but fails because of obvious
reasons I listed there and also here. These are what I remember:<br>
> Control needs to respect artwork width, RoundImage does not
support fillMode.<br>
> Twitching when switching media.<br>
> RoundImage does not take care of window DPR properly when
QQuickRenderControl is in use.<br>
<br>
Prince Gupta @jagannatharjun · 1 week ago<br>
> That's doesn't handle all the edge cases that MediaCover
does. Not to mention the unification of all this handling under
single control.<br>
> !5921 (merged) doesn't matter since you need RoundImage there
any way for radius and all other points are already being
discussed in !5940, but I won't comment this in !5921 (merged)
anymore since You will again take it as an attempt to sabotage.<br>
> This could've more gracefully handled if you in good faith,
wanted to discuss and contribute rather than attempt to demean
others' contributions.<br>
</p>
</body>
<lt-container></lt-container>
</html>