This is the mail archive of the 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 <> 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

Alexandre Oliva
FSF Latin America Board Member
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{,}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{,}

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