[aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov
arch at kge.pw
Fri Oct 26 18:03:45 UTC 2018
On 26/10/2018 18:23, Doug Newgard via aur-general wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 17:29:31 +0100
> Konstantin Gizdov <arch at kge.pw> wrote:
>> On 26/10/2018 15:27, Doug Newgard via aur-general wrote:
>>> I must point out this very recent mailing list thread:
>>> In this thread, you:
>>> 1) whine about someone taking over *your* packages, because you're the one that
>>> knows them and has cared for them and, after all, they're YOURS.
>> I did no such thing. I opened the thread by thanking Felix for picking
>> them up and asked a few questions about the plans for the packages and
>> how to pass on what I know, because I was having trouble doing that over
>> the bug tracker. What ensued after (the responses) was not my doing. I
>> tried to respond to every and all comments respectfully and I think you
>> will find a through discussion was had and a lot of details were sorted.
>> Part of that was revealing that the ROOT stack was being picked up -
>> yes, I care about it as it directly affects my profession and I've given
>> thorough reasons why. I **never claimed the packages were mine** - if
>> you talk about the usage of the word 'my', it clearly refers to me being
>> the maintainer. I said I've put work into them, continue to do so and
>> wanted to make sure I can pass that on in full. My TU application is me
>> trying to do that.
> You did thank Felix, but then went on to make your true intent extremely clear.
> You specifically ask why your packages were moved (there doesn't have to be a
> reason), and say things like:
> "The reason I'm asking is because over the years I've added and been
> maintaining some professional software and these packages are part of that
> chain. Colleagues in the field have become accustomed to me for packaging
> with care and updating with new features."
> The aforementioned thanks would appear to be perfunctory, like saying "No
> offense, but you're an idiot".
Nope, it's like - I wanna make sure the stuff works and want to ask some
>>> 2) whine about how things were handled on the bug tracker, thinking that this
>>> whining is how things get done. It's not.
>> Again, I did no such thing. I explained what happened and asked how can
>> I do better. I was told I have to stick to the bug tracker. Thus, I said
>> why I think this approach is failing in that particular case and gave
>> By the way, it was only because of that email that one of the bugs was
>> reopened (by Eli) and fixed, otherwise it was ignored. Seems to me my
>> email worked fine.
> And this attitude right here is a major problem. One ticket was closed because
> it was very clearly not a bug. The second one that was closed was closed based
> on the information you gave, the reopen request contained different
> information. Based on that, I didn't deny the reopen request and decided to
> wait until I got home to try it. In the mean time, Eli took a look at the
> request and reopened it.
How do I know this? Also, I just sent an email with questions, you could
have replied - 'looking into it'. For example,
> In the middle of all of that, and completely independently and unrelated, you
> sent your email to this list, but you still seem to be under the impression
> that it was a good thing and actually accomplished something. I can assure you,
> it accomplished nothing good.
OK. Good to know.
>>> 3) Tell bald faced lies about how things transpired on the bug tracker.
>> I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. In the many emails I wrote that
>> evening, I got confused about one bug being closed, where it wasn't. You
>> tried to call me out for lying and my whole point being wrong, but later
>> **you yourself sent a follow up email to correct your own statement**. I
>> acknowledged my mistake on the spot. Surely, we can agree all of us make
>> mistakes. **In no way or form was I telling bald faced lies.**
> So you opened 3 tickets. Two were closed and *one* (1) was denied a reopen. Yet
> you claim "I tried to re-open all 3 bugs but was denied with little to no
> comment/explanation." There is too much disparity here to be a typo or a
The mistake was I tried to re-open all 3 instead of 2, which I
acknowledged on the spot. I just check in the bug tracker.
This is the last email about this to you too.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the aur-general