[vlc-devel] [vlc-commits] packetizer/startcode_helper: enhance with AVX2

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

Le jeudi 14 mars 2019, 12:04:05 EET jnqnfe at gmail.com a écrit :
> On Tue, 2019-03-12 at 18:54 +0200, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> > I don't care.
> > 
> > I am very fed up with you and your persistent refusal to test your
> > patches
> > before you submit them. I have warned you many times already.
> > 
> > You don't want to follow the rules that everybody else does?
> > 
> > Fine. Go away.
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> Firstly, I have to begin by questioning why you have published your
> grievance here publicly on the mailing list rather than speaking to me
> privately?

Seriously? Why should I give you such favor when you clearly don't give a damn 
about our processes?

> The recent problem aside (to which I am sympathetic to any frustration
> felt), I really do not understand how you can justify supposedly having
> built up this frustration towards me over time.

You've got to be kidding. I've lost count of how many times you sent a series 
of patch that would not even compile. Do you have a damn clue how much free 
time I (and probably others) have wasted because of you?

> You have misrepresented and/or misunderstood my position here on the
> issue at hand; I believe that you are factually mistaken in how much
> you seem to recall "warning" me previously, indeed in the idea that you
> have even "warned" me at all in any regard rather than simply
> expressing dissatisfaction and discouragement at best; and I feel that
> your seemingly uncompromising attitude on this topic no matter it seems
> how trivial the patch is very much unreasonable.

So almost everybody except you compile-tests most of their patches. If 
somebody's unreasonable, that's you and your self-centered ways of 
"contributing".

> I do not even really understand in what form you actually mean when it
> comes to "warning", which does not make it easy to respond to; do you
> mean in terms of playing with fire - that ultimately a bad patch was
> bound to result at some point - or warning me that if I kept it up that
> you'd start refusing to accept my contributions? Either way I do not
> accept that you have actually ever done either.

Selective memory much? I told you many times that your patches were not 
compiling. Not to mention that the patch submission guidelines are painfully 
clear about NOT doing what you do.

> To be very, very clear, should you not be reading this thoroughly, it
> is *not* the case that I was choosing to not compile, I was not in a
> position to, as I am certain I had originally stated.

I DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL SITUATION.
That is your problem, not mine nor anybody else's here.

Either you follow the rules of our community, like everybody else strives to, 
or you leave.

-- 
Rémi Denis-Courmont