Re: [aur-general] Account Suspended, No Reason Given
I already did. I showed an example of how I contributed, and I already have two packages I was able to update and maintain. There would have been many more if I wasn't suspended for no good reason. You blindly assuming I didn't contact the maintainer, then denying my request TWICE, not giving a reason TWICE, instead of actually discussing it with me why you denied my maintainership is not actually a reason to deny my request. Since you didn't explicitly claim why you denied it, having two times to do so, taunting me to request it again, technically is no reason to deny someones request. Not only was no reason given to denying my request to maintain sdl2-hg, you gave no reason for suspending my account. FYI, "sdl2-hg" and "lib32-sdl2-hg" were both maintained by the same guy, so if you just handed over maintainership to me for "lib32-sdl2-hg" in a blink of an eye, there's no reason to do the same for "sdl2-hg", considering it was the same maintainer, and all the reasons I mentioned before, especcially the comment from "Teteros". This all in all, is completely unprofessional, and for some of you to judge me and my actions...maybe you all should look at yourselfs before even considering judging me. Sorry if this double posted, my gmail is glitching out.
Also don't try and turn this into me wanted praise and being over-infatuated with myself. If you actually read the whole discussion, I only mentioned my achievements because I was being attacked and trying to be made out to be a bad person by Jason and others, justifying unproper treatment in their eyes, and ignoring all the good I have done, which far outweighs any "help vampiring", trust me.
So Mr.Elenig, you trying to belittle me and discredit me, further proves Mark's point he made ealier that you can't place people having more importance than others (something I also wasn't doing), since we all are important to Arch, and Linux as a whole. You don't know all I've done, so you can't just assume I haven't done anything, or am looking for praise, since you would know that's not the case if you fully read this whole discussion.
On 04/11/2018 08:09, shoober420 wrote:
So Mr.Elenig, you trying to belittle me and discredit me, further proves Mark's point he made ealier that you can't place people having more importance than others (something I also wasn't doing), since we all are important to Arch, and Linux as a whole. You don't know all I've done, so you can't just assume I haven't done anything, or am looking for praise, since you would know that's not the case if you fully read this whole discussion.
You are misreading my mail, and I'm not trying to belittle and discredit you, let me explain: Showing with action doesn't mean reiterating that you have contributed before. A good way to do it would be to calm down, go outside and do something for a while. And then when the suspension have timed out you could make a new request where you explain the problem with the package and why you should be allowed to take over. Write it more like your bug report to valve and with less of the "humor".
On 11/04/18 at 01:37am, shoober420 via aur-general wrote:
I already did. I showed an example of how I contributed, and I already have two packages I was able to update and maintain. There would have been many more if I wasn't suspended for no good reason.
The reason was given here already, i.e. making (seemingly) bogus requests. I guess marking inactive should also ask for a reason in the future and mail that to the inactivee. That's something which I believe does not exists yet.
You blindly assuming I didn't contact the maintainer, then denying my request TWICE, not giving a reason TWICE, instead of actually discussing it with me why you denied my maintainership is not actually a reason to deny my request. Since you didn't explicitly claim why you denied it, having two times to do so, taunting me to request it again, technically is no reason to deny someones request.
As said before, it's common to first flag it out of date, wait for results and then orphan it.
Not only was no reason given to denying my request to maintain sdl2-hg, you gave no reason for suspending my account. FYI, "sdl2-hg" and "lib32-sdl2-hg" were both maintained by the same guy, so if you just handed over maintainership to me for "lib32-sdl2-hg" in a blink of an eye, there's no reason to do the same for "sdl2-hg", considering it was the same maintainer, and all the reasons I mentioned before, especcially the comment from "Teteros".
Different TU's accept AUR requests, and respond differently to requests such as "Yo I got this my dude". Anyway please take a deep breath, calm down and refrain from re-iterating already mentioned statements. If you don't calm down, I will moderate you here, since this discussion is not going anywhere.
This all in all, is completely unprofessional, and for some of you to judge me and my actions...maybe you all should look at yourselfs before even considering judging me.
It's hard not to judge if you keep making/re-iterating the topic instead of calming down. And asking in a friendly manner if your account can be activated again. -- Jelle van der Waa
The whole issue, is that the supposed reason wasn't given until I started this discussion, not when I made the request, which is when it should have intially been stated. Instead of a reason being stated for the denied request, I was mocked and taunted to send another request, which I did. Like I said, I flagged the "lib32-sdl2-hg" package out of date over half a year ago, no one did anything with it, and that package was also the same maintainer as "sdl2-hg". Meaning, any packages that person maintains technically, is no longer maintained. On account for all the other reasons mentioned previously, especially "Teteros" commenting, and no response for over two weeks. I had like 10 cups of coffee today, and its almost 7AM here. I really have nothing against any of you, and have no hard feelings. Everything is all good. I'm going to go lay down.
Am 04.11.18 um 09:01 schrieb shoober420 via aur-general:
[…] Like I said, I flagged the "lib32-sdl2-hg" package out of date over half a year ago, no one did anything with it, and that package was also the same maintainer as "sdl2-hg".
I never received a mail from you and the last and only out-of-date message I received before this was "PKGBUILD needs updated". Not really helpful in my opinion. Also, simply overwriting my PKGBUILD with the one from the repository (like you suggested) does not work. Anyway, since you really want to maintain it, I orphaned it now. So, after the ban is lifted, you may do as you please.
Meaning, any packages that person maintains technically, is no longer maintained.
While I do not think this is true, because I still have updated others in the meanwhile, maybe is a good time to send some orphan requests, so I can get rid of them. Btw. I have made changes to, like, 400 PKGBUILDs in the AUR over the last 8 years, I test my packages in clean chroots and (lib32-)sdl2-hg have always built there fine. I may not be the best maintainer, but there are certainly worse.
On account for all the other reasons mentioned previously, especially "Teteros" commenting, and no response for over two weeks.
I still believe selecting the wrong branch was either a user or server configuration issue, since my test showed it cloned the correct branch here. Anyway, yes, I did not react on that. I see you have fixed that now as well (applying the suggested change by Teteros).
I had like 10 cups of coffee today, and its almost 7AM here. I really have nothing against any of you, and have no hard feelings. Everything is all good. I'm going to go lay down.
No hard feelings here as well. Just a friendly advice: There may be times where you cannot (or do not want to) correspond to every request made on every platform where you are active. For me it was this time that we were in the middle of release preparations of a project I am maintaining on GitHub, so there was little time to spend on AUR. It may happen to you in the future and maybe someone wants to take over one of your packages then. ;) best regards, carstene1ns
On 11/4/18 12:32 PM, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
On 11/04/18 at 01:37am, shoober420 via aur-general wrote:
Not only was no reason given to denying my request to maintain sdl2-hg, you gave no reason for suspending my account. FYI, "sdl2-hg" and "lib32-sdl2-hg" were both maintained by the same guy, so if you just handed over maintainership to me for "lib32-sdl2-hg" in a blink of an eye, there's no reason to do the same for "sdl2-hg", considering it was the same maintainer, and all the reasons I mentioned before, especcially the comment from "Teteros".
Different TU's accept AUR requests, and respond differently to requests such as "Yo I got this my dude".
For the record, that first request went through automatically. -- Rob (coderobe) O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org
Oh hey carstene1ns, glad you can join. Haven't heard from you in a while. Regardless of if you received the email or not, this does NOT cover up all the other issues present here. And yes, I also did send you that email as well, which you felt wasn't important enough to respond back to, further making matters here worse. This still does not justifying anything that has happened here, only showing the fact you didn't respond to my email. I know people will have very busy times in their lives, but not being able to respond back to an email? So even if you received that other email, I guess it wouldnt of mattered much huh? Since you wouldnt of responded back to that one either. During that time of you being missing in action for that package, I also edited the PKGBUILD to compile successfully for yamagi-quake2-git. Even if "lib32-sdl2-hg" compiled successfully for you, that doesn't mean it does for everyone else, especially since lib32-tslib is required, and wasn't in the "makedepends". AGAIN, who cares if the first request went through automatically, this DOES NOT cover up how you handled the situation. You responding the way you did, only incited me to think you were joking around. Like I said before, dont be a hypocrite. If you wanted to be taken more seriously, and have the whole situation taken more seriously, dont respond to me by mocking and taunting me. All of this could have been handled in a civil manner if you didn't instigate the situation, and just simply gave me a warning me of my behavior. So instead of you all continuing to trying tow justify yourselfs and make me look like this is all my fault and judging me, go look at yourselfs before you EVEN judge me.
Oh, Mr. Elendig, with such a wise comment about memes. You want to hear something? With all this continued blame in my direction, how about i just INSTALL GENTOO. This is seriously absolutely ridiculous, and you all need to back off me, and go look at yourselfs in the mirror for a good long time.
On 11/04/18 at 04:52am, shoober420 via aur-general wrote:
Oh, Mr. Elendig, with such a wise comment about memes. You want to hear something?
With all this continued blame in my direction, how about i just INSTALL GENTOO.
This is seriously absolutely ridiculous, and you all need to back off me, and go look at yourselfs in the mirror for a good long time.
I've warned you before, that if you continue to re-iterate you will be moderated. That happened now, please cool down, no one benefits from this drama. -- Jelle van der Waa
participants (5)
-
Carsten Teibes
-
Jelle van der Waa
-
Mr.Elendig
-
Robin Broda
-
shoober420