[MPlayer-dev-eng] uau - svn account removal
diego at biurrun.de
Tue Feb 27 17:46:25 CET 2007
As always, Ivan, you do contribute nothing to resolve a dispute but just
pour more gasoline on the flames...
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 06:07:37PM +0200, Ivan Kalvachev wrote:
> 2007/2/27, Attila Kinali <attila at kinali.ch>:
> >I created quite a mess here which i should not have
> >done. And i want to appologize to everyone, especialy to uau
> >for this.
> >IMHO, because this vote should have never been started
> >and because i think that Dominiks patches fix the issue
> >at hand i thought that i should cancel the whole voting
> >thing and let it be. But unfortunately, even this wouldnt
> >be a clean way out of it as some people expect that i publish
> >the votes i collected and someone is even threatening with leaving
> >the project.
> >Well, it's my fault and i have to clean up somehow.
> >For the results, i counted 11 votes (from Oded, Dominik, Ivo, Michael,
> >Nico, Guillaume, Rich, Luca, Roberto, Compn and Ivan) with:
> >1 Yes
> >4 No
> >6 Conditional No
> >Which means that uau's account should be kept under the conditon
> >that the svn commits are fixed up.
> If you read again you'll see that at least 4 of the conditional votes
> (dalias, poirierg, lu_zero, michaelni) are saying that uau must
> revert it's work until 2007 Feb 27 00:00 +0000. That date have passed
> so the condition failed and should be counted as YES. I'm sure other
> conditional votes and even some of the NOes (rxt, nicodvb, Rathann)
> include similar requirement.
If you read the voting procedure closely you will see that the votes
should have been sent to root at . If just those votes were counted, Uoti
would remain a committer, case closed. If you choose to insist on
formalities, at least use the whole set and not just the deadline but
not the mode of voting.
> The svn is not fixed yet and uau has not given any sign he is going to do
If you are going to flame at least get all the information, look at my
mail in the thread where Dominik proposed the cleanup patches.
> >As Dominik is already working on this we can for the moment
> >refrain from disabling uau's account IMHO. I think that uau
> >learned something from this and thus will not repeat the same
> >mistakes again.... And neither will I.
> I'm afraid you are completely missing the point, as does Diego.
> It's not (only) about the commit or the history, it's about uau
> refusing to fix his own mess.
You are completely missing the point of Attila's mail. He has deep
regrets about having kicked off this voting procedure in the first
> Diego tried to give example with Reimar, but Reimar did fix the
> "example" issue even when we all knew it was not necessary.
> Just few days before the whole mess Reimar did broke the rules for
> real, committing over code I maintain. Not only I had disagreed of the
> changes the day before (it introduced unnecessary changes), but it
> also had hidden bug. I requested revert without giving any extra
> explanations (not even about the bug).
> And Reimar DID revert it the very same day. Then I gave explanation
> and he agreed with me. The proper version I had committed proved my
> Case closed. MPlayer survived.
This case is not comparable at all. Reimar committed to code maintained
by you because he understood you to have approved his patch (this was my
understanding as well, btw, your English is simply not always clear).
When you clarified you had in fact not approved the patch, Reimar
Uoti did not mistake non-approval for approval and the code he committed
to is maintained by himself.
> There is one more issue. I just asked Diego if FFmpeg and MPlayer svn
> developers lists are separated and he said they are not separated in
> the moment but they could be.
> I'm sure Michael have the authority as FFmpeg Project Leader to
> request keeping uau away from ffmpeg svn.
This is a complete non-issue since Uoti does not commit to FFmpeg.
I consider it very much out of place for you to be making suggestions
about what Michael should or should not do about commits to FFmpeg.
He is very well capable of deciding that for himself. That you are
trying to incite him to remove somebody else's commit privileges is
P.S.: Is it just me who dislikes people being referred to by their
nicknames instead of their proper names on the mailing list?
More information about the MPlayer-dev-eng