Hi all,
Just wanted to give a quick heads-up that this hasn’t been forgotten. But I’ve
been sick with the flu the last week and simply didn’t manage to push things
forward.
As we have so far not had the need for such a vote, there’s some things we’ll
need to sort out to make it happen. I’ll fo
The patchset is still blocked.
Gerrit Admins, could you please remove the -2 vote?
Ivan
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
On Friday, 17 September 2021 02:03:39 PDT Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
> The approver that gave the -2 not yielding to the maintainer giving a +2
> should be (and is, in my experience) such an exceptional situation that it
> deserves explicitly notifying the chief maintainer and gerrit admins. And
> pe
On 17 Sep 2021, at 10:51, Edward Welbourne wrote:
>> The Maintainer has the authority to ask the admins to remove it.
>> Indeed, a button - available only to the Maintainer(s) of the module
>> - would be a nice improvement to the process but, for the present at
>> least, that "button" is implement
> On 17 Sep 2021, at 10:51, Edward Welbourne wrote:
>
> Chris Adams (17 September 2021 03:45) wrote:
>> My point being: maybe the "maintainers can override a -2" is a
>> "conceptual power" rather than a physical button in Gerrit, which
>> still requires the approver to take away their own -2 in t
Chris Adams (17 September 2021 03:45) wrote:
> My point being: maybe the "maintainers can override a -2" is a
> "conceptual power" rather than a physical button in Gerrit, which
> still requires the approver to take away their own -2 in that
> circumstance? (Obviously Gerrit admins can do it, but
On Thursday, 16 September 2021 18:45:35 PDT Chris Adams wrote:
> My point being: maybe the "maintainers can override a -2" is a "conceptual
> power" rather than a physical button in Gerrit, which still requires the
> approver to take away their own -2 in that circumstance?
Correct.
--
Thiago Mac
Hi,
I'm not related at all to QBS development, but I am a maintainer of another
module or two (add-on modules like QtPIM, QMF), and I've never noticed an
"override review" button (similar to the "override sanity bot" button).
Although I can't ever remember having seen a -2 in those modules, so may
Tbf, the only vote that's needed is to make you the official maintainer.
The only reason this situation even exists is seemingly because while
Christian +2'd your patch, he didn't override -2 from Ossi while it was
said above he could. Regardless of who is right in this situation, that he
didn't li
I believe there were several other cases, both in gerrit and discord.
I think, we should proceed with a formal vote.
Ivan
> 16 сент. 2021 г., в 14:50, David Skoland написал(а):
>
>
>
>> On 15 Sep 2021, at 16:52, Oswald Buddenhagen
>> wrote:
>> your arrogance, dismissiveness, and cynicism a
On 15 Sep 2021, at 16:52, Oswald Buddenhagen
mailto:oswald.buddenha...@gmx.de>> wrote:
your arrogance, dismissiveness, and cynicism are duly noted, as usual.
I believe this constitutes a personal attack, which is in violation of the Qt
Code of Conduct:
http://quips-qt-io.herokuapp.com/quip-001
On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 09:34:00AM +, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> the thing is that an agreement *can* be reached, as has been many times
> before. the maintainer just doesn't give a shit.
Can we refrain from using such language on the mailing list? Not everyone
appreciates it and there is no
QUIP-2 clearly states that the maintainer has decision power in case no
agreement can be reached.
the thing is that an agreement *can* be reached, as has been many times
before. the maintainer just doesn't give a shit.
The question is more about how much effort and discussion is needed to
reac
On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 07:52:14AM +, Lars Knoll wrote:
The original problem is that using a -2 to block a change that has been
approved by the module maintainer is basically abusing gerrit to break
our governance model.
telling the maintainer to not do a proper job as a maintainer is also
Hi,
I think this discussion about details is pretty much irrelevant.
The original problem is that using a -2 to block a change that has been
approved by the module maintainer is basically abusing gerrit to break our
governance model. QUIP-2 clearly states that the maintainer has decision power
On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 12:40:37AM +0300, Иван Комиссаров wrote:
15 сент. 2021 г., в 14:03, Oswald Buddenhagen
написал(а):
for example, he plainly admits that his documentation doesn't match
the code.
That’s not true.
for it not being true you're making a _remarkable_ effort to establish
t
> 15 сент. 2021 г., в 14:03, Oswald Buddenhagen
> написал(а):
>
> in a nutshell, though, i think ivan's initial message is revealing
> enough - for example, he plainly admits that his documentation doesn't
> match the code. that's an automatic -1, and a yellow card for attitude.
That’s not tr
OK, it will be fair to list the problems/inconveniences we have right now (or,
in other way, the advantages of GitHib)
- It is hard for the newcomers to get familiar with gerrit - some people
submitted raw patches in JIRA claiming they don’t have time to learn Gerrit
while knowing the pull-requ
On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 01:37:38PM +0200, Christian Kandeler wrote:
I think our definition of "guidance" differs. For me, it does not
involve going into infinite loops of obsessively arguing about points
that only I care about. I do believe, however, that I am reasonably
capable of telling a good
: Development on behalf of Denis
Shienkov
Date: Wednesday, 15. September 2021 at 13.59
To: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Qbs development
Hi Lars, Tuukka,
> I also would very much like you to stay here.
AFAIK, a main issue here not about of maintenance behaviour. A m
On 9/15/21 1:03 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
in this case, you personally instructed the maintainer to do only
minimal maintenance work (which he does an excellent job at). he has
repeatedly made clear that he has exactly *zero* interest in the
strategic direction of qbs, and is letting "the com
On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 02:33:04PM +, Lars Knoll wrote:
Ossi, I (and probably others on this mailing list) would also like to hear your
view on this.
my view is that ivan is being unreasonable (surprise surprise).
most of the recent discussion happened on discord
(https://discord.com/chann
lopment <mailto:development-boun...@qt-project.org>> on behalf of Иван
Комиссаров mailto:abba...@gmail.com>>
*Date:*Tuesday, 14. September 2021 at 20.49
*To:*Lars Knoll mailto:lars.kn...@qt.io>>
*Cc:*Qt development mailing list <mailto:development@qt-project.org>>
*Su
qt.io>>
*Cc:*Qt development mailing list <mailto:development@qt-project.org>>
*Subject:*Re: [Development] Qbs development
Thanks for the response.
I can provide a third option - we can move Qbs out of the Qt
Governance Model by moving to GitHub. I have raised this topic on our
Disco
roject.org>>
Subject: Re: [Development] Qbs development
Thanks for the response.
I can provide a third option - we can move Qbs out of the Qt Governance Model
by moving to GitHub. I have raised this topic on our Discord server and the
community overall seems positive - there were several v
,
Tuukka
From: Development on behalf of Иван
Комиссаров
Date: Tuesday, 14. September 2021 at 20.49
To: Lars Knoll
Cc: Qt development mailing list
Subject: Re: [Development] Qbs development
Thanks for the response.
I can provide a third option - we can move Qbs out of the Qt Governance
Thanks for the response.
I can provide a third option - we can move Qbs out of the Qt Governance Model
by moving to GitHub. I have raised this topic on our Discord server and the
community overall seems positive - there were several votes for the migration
and no votes against. This migration mi
Hi,
Let’s also take up the formal part of the request.
On 13 Sep 2021, at 22:59, Иван Комиссаров
mailto:abba...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Also, some actions might be taken to prevent from happening in the future - if
technically possible, I’d like to request the revoke of his approver rights on
the Q
> On 14 Sep 2021, at 12:34, Richard Weickelt wrote:
>
>
>> Just for the sake of clarity, who *is* the Maintainer of QBS ?
>> Our wiki's [[Maintainers]] page only mentions Christian Kandeler as
>> maintainer of Qt Creator's integration with it. I gather Ivan is a/the
>> principal developer of QB
> Just for the sake of clarity, who *is* the Maintainer of QBS ?
> Our wiki's [[Maintainers]] page only mentions Christian Kandeler as
> maintainer of Qt Creator's integration with it. I gather Ivan is a/the
> principal developer of QBS in practice. Is Ossi co-Maintainer, or are
> you really tal
Jason McDonald (14 September 2021 08:04) replied:
> I must refrain from commenting on the specific code review that is in
> dispute, as I'm not familiar with that module, but I would like to
> offer some more general remarks that I hope both you and Oswald will
> find helpful.
Likewise - and thank
Hi,
Not taking a stand to this particular issue, we in general are sometimes not
very good in taking incremental steps. If some review becomes very long, taking
months to complete, it rarely is the best way to tackle the issue. It can be
better to split to multiple smaller items and progress th
On Tue, 14 Sept 2021 at 07:01, Иван Комиссаров wrote:
> Hello everybody
>
Hello Ivan. I'm sorry to hear that you're experiencing some frustration
here.
I must refrain from commenting on the specific code review that is in
dispute, as I'm not familiar with that module, but I would like to offer
Hello everybody
I would like to raise an issue about Oswald Buddenhagen abusing his maintainer
rights. He is constantly blocking the merge of the patchset which implements a
new feature in Qbs [0]. I started working on this almost a year ago and the
issue was approved for the first time in Octo
34 matches
Mail list logo
