Re: 01/04: gnu: libtorrent-rasterbar: Update to 2.0.10.

Re: 01/04: gnu: libtorrent-rasterbar: Update to 2.0.10.

[Tomas Volf]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1007 bytes --]

guix-commits@gnu.org writes:

> z572 pushed a commit to branch master
> in repository guix.
>
> commit 37dede4c4d8c25a786f2a2e2a17ba54b4ba6283f
> Author: Adam Faiz via Guix-patches via <guix-patches@gnu.org>
> AuthorDate: Tue Aug 6 21:07:40 2024 +0800

I have to admit I am not very happy regarding the change in the commit
author.  While I understand the change itself might have been somewhat
trivial, I did work with upstream to merge the required changes for
2.0.10, so having the authorship stolen like this leaves somewhat
unpleasant feeling.

Especially since applying for commit access has a number of commits as
one of prerequisites, having your address visible in `git log --author'
goes from "collecting internet points" into "actually somewhat
important".  But even without that, I would still consider it not a nice
thing to do.

Have a nice day,
Tomas

-- 
There are only two hard things in Computer Science:
cache invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 853 bytes --]

Re: 01/04: gnu: libtorrent-rasterbar: Update to 2.0.10.

[Felix Lechner via Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution.]

Hi Tomas,

On Sun, Oct 06 2024, Tomas Volf wrote:

> Especially since applying for commit access has a number of commits as
> one of prerequisites

Actually, you are lucky.  They don't accept my commits at all.  I'd just
let it go.

Kind regards
Felix

[bug#69276] 01/04: gnu: libtorrent-rasterbar: Update to 2.0.10.

[John Kehayias via Guix-patches via]

Dear Tomas (and CC'ing the debbugs number, co-author, and committer Z572),

On Sun, Oct 06, 2024 at 07:52 PM, Tomas Volf wrote:

> guix-commits@gnu.org writes:
>
>> z572 pushed a commit to branch master
>> in repository guix.
>>
>> commit 37dede4c4d8c25a786f2a2e2a17ba54b4ba6283f
>> Author: Adam Faiz via Guix-patches via <guix-patches@gnu.org>
>> AuthorDate: Tue Aug 6 21:07:40 2024 +0800
>
> I have to admit I am not very happy regarding the change in the commit
> author.  While I understand the change itself might have been somewhat
> trivial, I did work with upstream to merge the required changes for
> 2.0.10, so having the authorship stolen like this leaves somewhat
> unpleasant feeling.
>

I understand your frustration and while I thank you for bringing this to attention (we care about attribution here!), I do think this was escalated a tiny bit in the heat of the moment. I don't see this message in the original patch thread with the other author (Adam) and committer (Z572, still relatively new), so it is quite possible they didn't see this message you sent until now.

I should say, I do think it is good to raise awareness so we can all do better, but I think we should try to give some benefit of the doubt and look for the best way forward. Mistakes happen! I had accidentally lost the author of some commits and realized after I had pushed them, raising this after with guix-devel and the original authors for what remedy they would like. Though everything was okay, I felt bad, and still do, but at least it has made me more vigilant. Let's remember we are all trying our best here and imagine ourselves on the other side.

(Side note that upstream work to help out Guix and packaging is always welcome, so thank you for that! Though that is separate from authorship of commits on the Guix side, of course.)

> Especially since applying for commit access has a number of commits as
> one of prerequisites, having your address visible in `git log --author'
> goes from "collecting internet points" into "actually somewhat
> important".  But even without that, I would still consider it not a nice
> thing to do.
>

Part of having commit access is also accepting that mistakes will happen and you are expected to remedy, learn, and help us all do better (e.g. see <https://guix.gnu.org/manual/devel/en/html_node/Commit-Access.html>). This quality I would say is much more important than just number of contributions, though that experience is a more quantifiable prerequisite.

As I hope a neutral third party, in this case I would suggest reverting the commits and then reapplying them with author/co-author set appropriately. I think this issue should have been brought up more directly with the parties involved, whether or not cc-ing guix-devel helps here I can't say. As I said, I at least take it as a reminder of our responsibilities and potential mistakes when we have commit access. While I could of course take this action myself, in following the link above, I leave it to those involved first.

> Have a nice day,
> Tomas

Let me also thank you for your contributions! I look forward to one day seeing you announced as a new committer as you continue to contribute. But I hope when you are on that side and make a mistake, as we all do, that you are given the benefit of the doubt, a chance to rectify, and help us all do better.

John

PS: I know tone is hard and easily (wrongly) assumed in written communication. Let me stress that all I wrote was meant to be understanding to your perspective and feelings (which I'm sure many would share in the same circumstances!) while also helping us reach a mutually beneficial remedy.

Re: 01/04: gnu: libtorrent-rasterbar: Update to 2.0.10.

[Tomas Volf]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5429 bytes --]


Hello John,

John Kehayias <john.kehayias@protonmail.com> writes:

> Dear Tomas (and CC'ing the debbugs number, co-author, and committer Z572),
>
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2024 at 07:52 PM, Tomas Volf wrote:
>
>> guix-commits@gnu.org writes:
>>
>>> z572 pushed a commit to branch master
>>> in repository guix.
>>>
>>> commit 37dede4c4d8c25a786f2a2e2a17ba54b4ba6283f
>>> Author: Adam Faiz via Guix-patches via <guix-patches@gnu.org>
>>> AuthorDate: Tue Aug 6 21:07:40 2024 +0800
>>
>> I have to admit I am not very happy regarding the change in the commit
>> author.  While I understand the change itself might have been somewhat
>> trivial, I did work with upstream to merge the required changes for
>> 2.0.10, so having the authorship stolen like this leaves somewhat
>> unpleasant feeling.
>>
>
> I understand your frustration and while I thank you for bringing this to
> attention (we care about attribution here!), I do think this was escalated a
> tiny bit in the heat of the moment. I don't see this message in the original
> patch thread with the other author (Adam) and committer (Z572, still relatively
> new), so it is quite possible they didn't see this message you sent until now.
>
> I should say, I do think it is good to raise awareness so we can all do better,
> but I think we should try to give some benefit of the doubt and look for the
> best way forward. Mistakes happen! I had accidentally lost the author of some
> commits and realized after I had pushed them, raising this after with guix-devel
> and the original authors for what remedy they would like. Though everything was
> okay, I felt bad, and still do, but at least it has made me more vigilant. Let's
> remember we are all trying our best here and imagine ourselves on the other
> side.
>
> (Side note that upstream work to help out Guix and packaging is always
> welcome, so thank you for that! Though that is separate from
> authorship of commits on the Guix side, of course.)

Hm, there is probably little bit of misunderstanding here.  Yes, I was
(am) a bit sad about this happening, but I did not really meant the
email as an "escalation".  And I did not send it to the debbugs bug
first.

I was just reacting to the commit I saw in guix-commits mailing list.
It explicitly has guix-devel set as Reply-To (instead of, for example,
the commit author), so I assumed here (guix-devel) is where should I
raise the issue.

I fully understand people (me included) make mistakes and I did not (and
do not) assume ill intentions here.

However, re-reading my original message I do think I should have taken a
second breath and tune it down a notch (or two), for failing to do that
I apologize.

>
>> Especially since applying for commit access has a number of commits as
>> one of prerequisites, having your address visible in `git log --author'
>> goes from "collecting internet points" into "actually somewhat
>> important".  But even without that, I would still consider it not a nice
>> thing to do.
>>
>
> Part of having commit access is also accepting that mistakes will happen and you
> are expected to remedy, learn, and help us all do better (e.g. see
> <https://guix.gnu.org/manual/devel/en/html_node/Commit-Access.html>). This
> quality I would say is much more important than just number of contributions,
> though that experience is a more quantifiable prerequisite.
>
> As I hope a neutral third party, in this case I would suggest reverting the
> commits and then reapplying them with author/co-author set
> appropriately.

While I appreciate the suggestion from a neutral party, I do not insist
on that.  This is just one patch of many that I have sent (and hopefully
will send).  I would very much prefer z572 to spent time on merging new
patches instead of redoing this one.  Many of my patches were applied by
z572, and I am grateful for their work.

> I think this issue should have been brought up more directly with the
> parties involved, whether or not cc-ing guix-devel helps here I can't
> say.

I reacted on this above already, but I will put up an explicit
suggestion: Maybe the Reply-To on guix-commits should be the committer.

> As I said, I at least take it as a reminder of our responsibilities
> and potential mistakes when we have commit access. While I could of
> course take this action myself, in following the link above, I leave
> it to those involved first.
>
>> Have a nice day,
>> Tomas
>
> Let me also thank you for your contributions! I look forward to one day seeing
> you announced as a new committer as you continue to contribute. But I hope when
> you are on that side and make a mistake, as we all do, that you are given the
> benefit of the doubt, a chance to rectify, and help us all do better.

As do I :)

>
> John
>
> PS: I know tone is hard and easily (wrongly) assumed in written
> communication. Let me stress that all I wrote was meant to be understanding to
> your perspective and feelings (which I'm sure many would share in the same
> circumstances!) while also helping us reach a mutually beneficial
> remedy.

I appreciate your reply and calm, neutral view point trying to find a
common way forward.  Thank you for weighing in.

Have a nice day,
Tomas

-- 
There are only two hard things in Computer Science:
cache invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 853 bytes --]