This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Put scope blocks on a diet


On Nov 27, 2007, Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> wrote:

> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>> I don't have a "double standard", etc.
>> 
>> Then how do you explain the decision to revert the patch that fixed a
>> bug without reverting the patch that caused the bug?

> I made the decision that seemed best to me at the time, based on the
> information I had at the time.

As I mentioned in another e-mail (but it was long, so I'll restate
here), I think the worst part of it was not seeking more information
before making the decision, or even the request.  A lot of discussion
on the problem the patch fixed was readily available, and I'd have
been happy to point it out (like I did) without having the additional
worry of disrespecting a decision.

> I am happy to have my decisions criticized, but you seem to be
> accusing me of some malice, malfeasance, or carelessness and I don't
> think that's appropriate.

I apologize for having left my frustration give you such a strong
impression.  My feeling was that my earlier assessments regarding the
problem and the patch had been taken into account and dismissed,
perhaps out of distrust for my skills.

I can live with not having earned enough trust to have my technical
assessments taken at face value; after all, trust for one's judgement
is something that one has to earn, not demand or impose ;-)  For the
record, that was the double-standards that I was challenging, and now
I realize even that was inappropriate, for the reason stated in this
very paragraph.

(I'll not get into the possibility of distrust for my ethics, as in
assuming I lied or something like that; I very much doubt there was
any such assumption)

But I found that having had the decision made before I was even
consulted about it, after I spent so much time understanding,
discussing and working on the problem, was quite inappropriate.

Not only for the implied (even if unintended) insult, but also
because, after I presented and summarized the background for the
patch, the decision was revised.

This leads me to believe that the decision was made without enough
information.  I guess at times such difficult calls have to be made,
even in the absence of enough information.  But for the future I
suggest, as friendly advice for community building (yeah, right, like
I'm an expert on that ;-) some effort to obtain more information from
the patch author, or someone else involved in its development or
approval or otherwise knowledgeable in the specific issue at hand,
before a decision to revert it is announced, or even requested.

A suggestion to revert it, along with some questions about the patch,
would be far more friendly, I think.

Thanks in advance for taking this into account, and, one more time,
please accept my apologies for my inappropriate harshness and
impoliteness.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]