[vlc-devel] [vlc-commits] Qt4: remove isFirstRun parameter
jb at videolan.org
Tue Mar 26 20:01:05 CET 2013
On 26 Mar, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote :
> However, I gave you the benefit of the doubt when you first accused me of
> unilaterally changing semantics. Afterall, nobody can remember all 6 years old
> bugs. I provided the proof to the contrary. I was merely addressing in good
> faith a reoccurrence of an old bug. Not saving command line options,
> whichever they may be, has been subject to at least two bugs, one authored by
> you, and has also been discussed at the last VDD that Hartman attended. I
> provided the bug references already.
This is a hard problem, and our lack of Registry settings or Common
configuration is at fault.
I would argue that the current fix is broken because there should be no
way to deactivate the First Run, but only a state in Qt.
This is not the first time I disagree with you and, news flash, not the
last time. And this is not the last time that I disagree with other
core developers (including Raf, Felix, Ludo, François, Ilkka or TypX),
and I think this is normal:
we maintain, as a small team, a project that is way bigger than most
other projects (maybe the biggest ratio of work/core dev).
But we have to agree that we disagree, in a polite way; and understand
that the other core developers are not totally without a brain. That's it.
I am not unreasonable, and usually quite balanced, and I think I've
shown it quite well in the past.
> Regardless you maintained that I, in pushing this commit, "[broke] existant
> (sic) behaviour, without discussion". At that point and in this particular
> case, I perceive the claim as a lie, an expression of bad faith. Consequently
> I deny any intended insult, although I acknowledge that some other people seem
> to have a more inclusive definition of an insult than I do.
I am sorry, but you cannot claim that the behaviour has not changed. Yet
you did, and I never called you a liar, I just did the normal thing, I
expected a misunderstanding.
Thinking that the old behaviour was wrong is totally understandable, notably
seeing how the discussions on that part were in the past, and seeing how
shitty is that part of the code; saying that has not changed is not.
Calling me a liar is an insult, intended or not, and is not OK and that's the main issue.
> Furthermore I also still consider the corporate aspect a red herring, which is
> a type of fallacy. It is understandable that corporations want to block the
> start dialog and automatic updates. But that is not an excuse to carry a
> mailing list filibuster against a legitimate bug fix of mine, and then put my
Sorry, but you failed to acknowledge or even try to understand what I
> methodology into question especially in public.
Sorry about that.
> I never prevented or threatened to prevent you or anyone else from
> implementing such a feature. Obviously I expect it not to create or
> reintroduce bugs. Just like custom language support, I can even review any
> proposed patch, even though I personally do not care about the feature in
> question. I just do not have any obligation to implement your feature desires
> or to abstain from fixing known bugs even if you consider them as features.
This is totally different. You have a very wide definition of "bug" and
"broken" and you remove features based on that. I often do not agree
about that, but that is life. I care more about our users.
And this is normal discussion.
> As for the term "plonk", I use it as a shorthand to put to an end an argument
> that is going nowhere. I reckon it might or might not be considered an insult
> depending of which etymology it is given, notably the one where L refers to
> "lamer". In that respect, I regret using such an ambiguous phrasing.
I am not the average guy on the mailing list, and I usually don't make a
fuss for nothing. I find your ending of this discussion irrespectful,
and I don't like that...
http://www.jbkempf.com/ - +33 672 704 734
Sent from my Electronic Device
More information about the vlc-devel