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

[jnqnfe at gmail.com]

If as you say I had indeed sent in a whole bunch of patches in the past
which have never compiled and caused a lot of wasted time, then I would
have to relent to your position being fair, but I do not believe that
is actually the case.

As I point out, there are a bunch of small patches I've sent in merged
to git master, and most of what have not been merged I still have on a
local branch, all of which do compile!

If time after time I had been sending in bad patches and you had been
complaining and warning me over and over that they did not compile and
I was causing you frustration and wasting your time, then I am sure
this would have dissuaded me by now from continuing until possible for
me to sort out my problems with respect to compiling.

I do care very much about not wasting developer time or causing undue
frustration, as I have already said, and I wish to get along with you
all in accomplishing work on improving VLC. I am very grateful to JBK
for his patience in working through the issues with the AVX2 related
patch set, as I have said to him privately, I worked very hard and
promptly to correct the mistakes he encountered or I noticed,
ultimately addressing the compiling issue to ensure that none remained
in the final revision I sent in, and I am embarrassed by the issue that
ended up on master that caused you a problem.

Making your grievance known to me privately is not "doing me a favor";
I was not at all aware that you held such frustration towards me,
despite your insistence that you've been repeatedly telling me so which
I disagree with, and as such it is only respectful to at least first do
so privately (though I get that you disagree with the idea of not
having done so properly/sufficiently before and you're probably going
to balk at the idea of respect); it is also a matter of compliance with
the community CoC regarding positive communication, which you are
violating by taking up this personal problem with me publicly, and no
matter how fair or not your feelings towards me they do not justify
your going against the CoC.

Since we completely disagree with how many times you have been
notifying me of problems, I will endeavour to review mailing list
communications that have taken place between the two of us since I
started submitting patches, to help get at the truth factually. By all
means dig up those regarding this supposed series of problems you
believe occurred. If indeed my memory is proven very bad then I will
stand corrected and apologise.

FYI, as a side note, the patches sent in a few minutes ago all compile
fine.

On Sun, 2019-03-17 at 12:11 +0200, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> 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.
>