From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp2 ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id 2LY6Ew/BjmAmFAEAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 02 May 2021 17:11:11 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp2 with LMTPS id qAveDg/BjmCWEAAAB5/wlQ (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 02 May 2021 15:11:11 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 061D511647 for ; Sun, 2 May 2021 17:11:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:53534 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ldDkT-0002sQ-Px for larch@yhetil.org; Sun, 02 May 2021 11:11:09 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:53010) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ldDbP-00026d-Hj for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 02 May 2021 11:01:49 -0400 Received: from mailrelay.tugraz.at ([129.27.2.202]:24043) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ldDbI-0006Ki-SX; Sun, 02 May 2021 11:01:47 -0400 Received: from nijino.local (91-114-247-246.adsl.highway.telekom.at [91.114.247.246]) by mailrelay.tugraz.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FY8St3yG8z1LBSW; Sun, 2 May 2021 17:01:34 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mailrelay.tugraz.at 4FY8St3yG8z1LBSW DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tugraz.at; s=mailrelay; t=1619967695; bh=3qThT3A2EuS+V6DwQmOaHhrKvwiMsuV4RhqvtloPlog=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Ej5eXRCuLNNevum99XmrYjUavaJkgTNZpC2cv8WxNSDrNiTqwKaBEVwtiXFJls8GC k9HLkoRRhTD94xXzxLnpf3hzGXxGVmk3V+d9NZYAmL5mXuRLCtkjVcusIw9dLj/Rfx R4/lQ0gYNYLoyHJ/2S8FogooC2pKgjYYZhCasyvc= Message-ID: <8df20a7d869d5bdca47aaf044ac9b229b020aea2.camel@student.tugraz.at> Subject: Re: Criticisms of my "tone" (was Re: A "cosmetic changes" commit that removes security fixes) From: Leo Prikler To: =?UTF-8?Q?=E5=AE=8B=E6=96=87=E6=AD=A6?= Date: Sun, 02 May 2021 17:01:33 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <87tunz11mf.fsf@netris.org> <87y2daz13x.fsf@netris.org> <87r1j2z079.fsf@netris.org> <87a6pqypf9.fsf@netris.org> <87wnsp7yo9.fsf@gnu.org> <87v986pdej.fsf@netris.org> <874kfm75fl.fsf@biscuolo.net> <1bbb100c34c660eaa697ae7ea9ea7ea3638c4c50.camel@student.tugraz.at> <87wnsije63.fsf@netris.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TUG-Backscatter-control: bt4lQm5Tva3SBgCuw0EnZw X-Spam-Scanner: SpamAssassin 3.003001 X-Spam-Score-relay: -1.9 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.74 on 129.27.10.117 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=129.27.2.202; envelope-from=leo.prikler@student.tugraz.at; helo=mailrelay.tugraz.at X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Guix Devel , GNU Guix maintainers Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1619968271; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:list-id:list-help: list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature; bh=3qThT3A2EuS+V6DwQmOaHhrKvwiMsuV4RhqvtloPlog=; b=e/fivMLq/ieG9M4nPOcLgWTRa4dFcmHbb2H6nN7pIkBPzB1FF1BdxDv+BCuh9oydsGicTQ 7uRoCfKiBEwYpBjZ5x6IEV72lfUzBAmV7IeyFhDObkVlt0oaoLVafoqga7H/aMhCLE3U2U 1K3BRgwVgYyHXA8d58T5egaVe+NAf1hV6rsyOTcMeGQf6EBLKbmJh4I0qFt06axKp3tMv8 pTq5UAbEf2UHNrm2hIjmJXSFo7W7qssTV4AArEWuRTDvJUM5V60Hk/A7VeOFjrifFPI3NN I0hzieJB9RW299J0924v5YqZZoK4NHCDRxrFiJCCQvQ2X4Z6xzTgEQ3a1f3vuQ== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1619968271; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=U6hSmTomUEMA6elHEFd0dm0qTl2NqRKLDabyFl+wfqUHO8WWRODzC0cwLWxYEbg9MwCS3+ dMcTK+QBu7qkWcrUB5QZt+NjtBJbtcQd5tDkjuUDuU6SztRo8PgspAjwiXoGlhbDDLeXDa GdwLQJPxriFGiSkXwAmtllpanhSyk7puTh39BHx7L/lJ//OpwM/MO5jA1VbqYwgh2DM4Nx rmT3H55R+zxUNgV7g4DWTJpKzf615Hd2sjcFWw40/Wxbqj5qiv0nhwXfAyb470TXGaS7Ns CA+pwP1R1TKPnZlf9SrsxZ2a5nroJWKhYjmWGTns1bu6ht2pEBJFZk1XLI9uXg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=tugraz.at header.s=mailrelay header.b=Ej5eXRCu; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=student.tugraz.at (policy=none); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Spam-Score: 0.14 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=tugraz.at header.s=mailrelay header.b=Ej5eXRCu; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=student.tugraz.at (policy=none); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 061D511647 X-Spam-Score: 0.14 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: umBgudrKjPI6 Am Sonntag, den 02.05.2021, 12:17 +0800 schrieb 宋文武: > Hello Leo, I see nothing wrong for assuming bad faith when security > fixes of packages are removed, in the end the truth matter, which I > believe is: You thought the patches for cario is not needed now on > core-updates, so you remove them. > what I mean is "for assuming bad intent", or more clearly: "for > assuming that you remove thoese security patches to introduce > backdoors on purpose". I don't think Mark try to prove you're lying > from his messages, if that's what "assumed bad faith" means... Now, lfam has already pointed out, that I'm not Léo, but I don't think whether I am or am not matters much in this context. Let us assume for the sake of argument I were to introduce a bug into Guix. There are a number of ways this can happen, but let's focus on the important distinction here, which is me purposefully introducing that bug vs. it happening due to oversight. Let us imagine the following four scenarios: 1. You assume I'm acting in bad faith and I indeed am. 2. You assume I'm acting in bad faith and I am not. 3. You assume I'm acting in good faith and I am not. 4. You assume I'm acting in good faith and I am. In scenarios 1 and 4, your judgement is completely correct and we need not further discuss it. But what about 2 and 3? First, let's believe myself to be acting in bad faith while I am not. You will attack me for introducing a bug into Guix and (because you've already determined I'm acting in bad faith) strip me from commit rights. This can either be the end of the story or the start of a long rant started by me on how unfairly I was treated by Guix. Bad optics. Now let's say you assume I'm acting in good faith while I am not. You might want to (politely) ask me to come up with an explanation as to why I introduced this bug. I might respond or not. Depending on my response, you might even be fooled into believing I acted in good faith until I conveniently introduce another bug. At some point, you will probably have to conclude, that I'm not. In this scenario, I am kept around longer than necessary and my repeated introduction of bugs produces headaches to everyone, particularly when I circumvent the review process. To be honest, the way I presented 3, it looks very grim, but realistically speaking, I don't think all of the maintainers will be fooled for very long. With regards to the recent issue, we have a clear account from Raghav as to what happened as well as their statement, that they have since learned to be less misleading in their commit messages. I often collaborate with Raghav or review their patches and when doing so I can feel clear commitment from their side, but also a sense of eagerness, that at times I feel uneasy about. Rather than worrying, that they might intentionally do bad, I fear they might do bad out of haste and I'm still in the process of learning how to best communicate that to them. They are awfully fast at churning out patch sets and at times I find myself outpaced, especially recently, when Guix has not been the only project I'm working on. Writing long essays by email also takes precious time away from patch review, working on my own contributions or leisure. In short, I'm slowly starting to feel a little too stressed. But enough about my complaints. Long story short, I think we ought to assume good faith when engaging in criticism, so as to not discourage people, who otherwise do good work. Regards, Leo