Re: Call Monday 24 Jan 2005

Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> 
> Roland Mainz wrote:
> > Adam Jackson wrote:
> >
> >>On Monday 24 January 2005 02:18, Roland Mainz wrote:
> >>
> >>>Daniel Stone wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 08:12:35AM +0100, Roland Mainz wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>- Discussion about Daniel Stones recent behaviour (a seperate Xorg
> >>>>>board call may be neccesary to decide what should be done here)
> >>>>
> >>>>Er, I can see how this would be appropriate for a general X.Org call, but
> >>>>surely the purpose of r-w calls is 6.8.x, which my commits were unrelated
> >>>>to?
> >>>
> >>>As I said, a seperate Xorg directors call may now be required as you are
> >>>refusing even minimum cooperation (it's not about the recent comit
> >>>itself, more about the general behaviour...).
> >>
> >>Are you seriously suggesting disciplinary action for a change that appears to
> >>have majority community support and that we have no established policy for
> >>doing any other way?
> >
> >
> > It's the way how Daniel is acting now and in the past. It's not only
> > todays incident (where Daniel has horked the default settings for _ALL_
> > operating systems and not only Linux)
> 
> Are you for real?

Yes, I am very real in this case.

> What about when you updated the build to require motif by default?

See below... I did enable this as part of the tree merge, however it
turned out that this didn't work for most of the Linux distributions so
the change was reverted, step-by-step until the platform maintainers
were happy with that status (and yes, I got the whips for doing that,
apologised for the problems I caused and did some (but not all)
adjustments myself).

> That's a lot worse than disabling a extension that is hardly used
> anymore

If you are referring to XRX - XRX is actively being used. Just because
Redhat doesn't ship with it doesn't mean there are no users. Due the
situation of the old X.org consortium users like CERN even developed
their own fixed version of the plugin due lack of another way to get the
situation back into a useable state.

> or xterm which is maintained out-of-tree.
> 
> What about adding random new Xaw and Xprint programs to the monolithic
> tree even as we are planning to go modular?

The original addition of Xprint tools part was announced and part of the
Xprint merge and the "dbedizzy" thing went through the Xorg_arch list
and finally Jim Gettys gave his clearance for the inclusion via IRC.

> What about silently adding Xprint dependencies to Xaw?

"Silently" ? The whole Xprint merge and the Xaw update was _ANNOUNCED_
two times (at least!) in the public and the Xaw patches were reviwed and
tested for around _ONE_ year. Really noone can claim that this was
silent (I thought this item was outlined VERY CLEAR in the Xorg arch
phone call and the posted summary about the Xorg arch board vote - why
are you now coming up with this (invalid) argument ?).

> What about breaking the build for BSD (#909), a platform you surely
> don't own?

The build bustage something which wasn't intentionally and I already
apologised two times - and now the third time. I am sorry for that.
That's far different from Daniel's current behaviour of even refusing
MINIMUM cooperation (how often has he been asked to revert the change -
three times ? Four times ?) of something he did intentionally (and
acting like a small child doesn't make the situation better - first
Daniel was ranting that the XRX fixes were approved for the stable
branch, then he filed https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2363
(subject: "must must must integrate more software") and then he removed
the parts he didn't like from the default build. The chronologocal order
of these items doesn't look like an action of a sane mind. And the
argument that "... removing 'xterm' from the default build was done in a
consens ..." is invalid as there was no consens at this point (and it
doesn't make a consens just because Daniel asked his fellows on IRC to
post some "good change... hurray"-emails to the list afterwards)).

> Yes, Daniel sometimes acts too quickly and without consulting the list,
> but it's not like you have a clean slate.  And for you to request a
> board meeting about Daniels behaviour... words fail me.

No, Daniel has finally going too far this time. And I am not the only
one who thinks that some action is now required after he blew up the
tree _INTENTIONALLY_ (see my comment about
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2363 above). And it's not
nice either that Daniel permanetly runs around and offends people
intentionally (not counting todays item with the
MAS-doesn't-belong-here-"fun").

----

Bye,
Roland

-- 
  __ .  . __
 (o.\ \/ /.o) [email protected]
  \__\/\/__/  MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer
  /O /==\ O\  TEL +49 641 7950090
 (;O/ \/ \O;)