Report of potential Code of Conduct violation

Hello,

I would like to report Prince Gupta (@jagannatharjun) for potential Code 
of Conduct violation regarding his comment where he accused me of 
"demeaning others" and engaging in so-called "d*ck measuring contests": 
https://code.videolan.org/videolan/vlc/-/merge_requests/5864#note_451556.

The subject merge request was merged on Aug 7 2024 and single-handedly 
caused 5 regressions (that are easily noticeable) with mere +12,-10 
lines of change. I commented with "It is pretty obvious that this merge 
request has never been tested properly. It deserves to be nominated as 
the worst merge request since ...", because I believe that we have 
higher standards than that here at VLC-devel. We are in the same ship, 
if causing 5 regressions with such small changes becomes a norm, we are 
going to have major issues since all of us and not solely the author are 
going to be blamed for the quality of the product.

Some might blame me for taking a direct approach of expressing my 
dissatisfaction in such a manner. I believe that if something is bad, we 
should say that it is bad otherwise it is never going to be fixed. And 
the means of expression or tone of feedback should be proportional to 
the cause. I'm not saying that the author should be punished, even 
though if an engineer causes collapse of a bridge due to his own fault 
he would (and should) be accountable for that mistake in court, but the 
author definitely owes a public apology to the whole team if a small 
change causes a lot of regressions due to lack of attention.

Instead of taking criticism, and apologizing for stalling the 
development, he insulted me and created a faulty revert of a revert 
(!5940) that does not even correct the regressions. I don't think this 
is acceptable. The log of conversations is attached.

Sincerely,
Fatih

Fatih Uzunoğlu @fuzun · 2 weeks ago
 > It is pretty obvious that this merge request has never been tested 
properly. It single-handedly caused at least 4 regressions, it deserves 
to be nominated as the worst merge request since !3385 (merged).

Prince Gupta @jagannatharjun · 1 week ago
 > This kind of exaggerated and unhelpful comment has happened more than 
once, and it's getting old. Claiming the merge request "has never been 
tested properly" is baseless and dismisses the work that went into it. 
Regressions are a normal part of development and should be addressed 
with specific, constructive feedback—not dramatic statements.
 > Labeling this as the "worst merge request" is neither accurate nor 
professional. If you have real concerns, address them directly. This 
kind of repeated negativity is not productive and needs to stop.

Fatih Uzunoğlu @fuzun · 1 week ago
 > If you actually tested this merge request but did not notice any of 
these five regressions, then this is gross incompetence, which is worse.
 > 1 regression is okay, 2 is tolerable. There is no way 5 regressions 
is "normal part of development".
 > If there is another Qt merge request that caused five regressions 
since !3385 (merged) I will take back my word and apologize for inaccuracy.

Prince Gupta @jagannatharjun · 1 week ago
 > Almost all of them depends on some small intricacies of 
implementation which I was not aware of since I don't work on this part 
of UI and is mostly worked by you. You could've helped me and everyone 
can enjoy contributing to the project but no you would prefer to demean 
others only so that you can look good.
 > Your Qt6 migration, many parts of the UI still remain broken. You're 
making it a d*ck measuring contest, which I will not be part of and I 
will not comment on this topic anymore.

Fatih Uzunoğlu @fuzun · 1 week ago
 > That's what I did in !5921 (merged) (fixing the issues you created), 
which was no-one but your responsibility. But you sabotaged my request 
by opening a thread without justification and essentially created revert 
of a revert in !5940.
 > If you happen to spot an issue, you are supposed to create an issue 
instead of complaining in a completely irrelevant merge request. Not to 
mention, it is utter nonsense to compare these two merge requests.
 > I will not comment on your insults, that will be reported to the 
administration.

Prince Gupta @jagannatharjun · 1 week ago
 > That's not fixing but, you just revert the changes without looking 
into actual issues and discussion. !5921 (merged) completely ignores the 
aim of this MR. !5940 has actual fixes.
 > What's the issue with the thread I opened? How trying to start a 
discussion a sabotage?

Fatih Uzunoğlu @fuzun · 1 week ago
 > Reverting your changes fixes all the issues I opened, so that's 
actual fixing. Additionally, I also covered the fallback case when the 
image fails to load.
On the other hand, !5940 tries to fix but fails because of obvious 
reasons I listed there and also here. These are what I remember:
 > Control needs to respect artwork width, RoundImage does not support 
fillMode.
 > Twitching when switching media.
 > RoundImage does not take care of window DPR properly when 
QQuickRenderControl is in use.

Prince Gupta @jagannatharjun · 1 week ago
 > That's doesn't handle all the edge cases that MediaCover does. Not to 
mention the unification of all this handling under single control.
 > !5921 (merged) doesn't matter since you need RoundImage there any way 
for radius and all other points are already being discussed in !5940, 
but I won't comment this in !5921 (merged) anymore since You will again 
take it as an attempt to sabotage.
 > This could've more gracefully handled if you in good faith, wanted to 
discuss and contribute rather than attempt to demean others' contributions.

_______________________________________________
vlc-devel mailing list
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options:
https://mailman.videolan.org/listinfo/vlc-devel