From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id gCFHMJ/Jj2DHOgEAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 03 May 2021 11:59:59 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1 with LMTPS id kJDWK5/Jj2DqewAAbx9fmQ (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 03 May 2021 09:59:59 +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 6B6FE15A88 for ; Mon, 3 May 2021 11:59:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:32866 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ldVMs-0005Jt-Is for larch@yhetil.org; Mon, 03 May 2021 05:59:58 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:41388) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ldVMa-0005JC-RD for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 03 May 2021 05:59:41 -0400 Received: from mailrelay.tugraz.at ([129.27.2.202]:57325) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ldVMW-0007tQ-54; Mon, 03 May 2021 05:59:40 -0400 Received: from [10.0.0.4] (91-114-247-246.adsl.highway.telekom.at [91.114.247.246]) by mailrelay.tugraz.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FYdjs4yHxz1LZVs; Mon, 3 May 2021 11:59:29 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mailrelay.tugraz.at 4FYdjs4yHxz1LZVs DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tugraz.at; s=mailrelay; t=1620035970; bh=znXQpZiuaDW8lXllV0UDlZAh5rUsfjE4p5slaakTpPc=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=VzdhDK+8GnfBfQoM3mpEeNWOGNvEgeQrA0MyGDrRdXc8BTysAjGRBzAL155R6FHMz hYBeDCRrg3ywGF8lDlR+fgAb/+cvk+LSBuuOppcvJLYKvnAby1oJmx1kcSFQ7aCIzV iYsDcif7sCmMPpItmYTVEVpVVlHvI2iB9R8rF2nw= Message-ID: <7ca586376ff9502f491dbd14cdfe6b91e8b7c03b.camel@student.tugraz.at> Subject: Re: Criticisms of my "tone" (was Re: A "cosmetic changes" commit that removes security fixes) From: Leo Prikler To: Mark H Weaver , Giovanni Biscuolo , Ludovic =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?= Date: Mon, 03 May 2021 11:59:03 +0200 In-Reply-To: <871raop4wq.fsf@netris.org> 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> <877dkhrfnj.fsf@netris.org> <1d5132d2fe2a9081906dedef574e466a357d4800.camel@student.tugraz.at> <871raop4wq.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=1620035999; 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=znXQpZiuaDW8lXllV0UDlZAh5rUsfjE4p5slaakTpPc=; b=q9NkT1Gb9r9UfrPpN3Yiphg065x957f1gq4LXJhLpDe8vG0AX6aX84GHpgfMwNuPNQfrNi PJJB5AauggUrSl87I09/BcjkpTeeHlCQyFd/0IgpnWZ2Jj4DWoXV/WZny3KBQYPmJFIfIO ht0y3Ne1GBhVJhbc8vGWcicL7trYZOuf1dBM8XG49THZqfnruswcpJk1JbW8CeOilV2ox4 1sZGiumwNdOBzhstq8+qEPuLm55ncvQ8HKQIFhUXS2lsssRTW3+RmLAgF0GmBWh/6CFCUk lTFovHqY3TT5y5ElDeQ+6BAFgOu2ekuKPK3Tcgmc7jna4KTkccj6+dto6PW6zg== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1620035999; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=K4gNQ3+pyGL0hmSPn8cku9zqkGGNK61txQcFsrAC/DCyzeo4CqVuT1lvy+LryI8VuWHH4n u46dDBnijnPjV+A+EPbFlKPPJWyVXPGwMIVN5AoP2XEpGFCuwY7zcRCvPWAj4nx7NrIomX Wgm3K2Z7JbfSqEL90+6meKh8V20gi66D2BywIkgLQOs2DrRRReMl+Z3PxEU8sHuSlW+AtB fZ+GGbxB0qL3F6OupffLoi9RQaHhQpjSnpHpLymay9gtdth3whT2fZFere2+sSW5L9HJde 0STm3SSqoTqw40F+QMcJNaFLk+e2yIsSZX505N7BABIXnan14RgeL5CXm8VF2w== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=tugraz.at header.s=mailrelay header.b=VzdhDK+8; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=student.tugraz.at; 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: -3.16 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=tugraz.at header.s=mailrelay header.b=VzdhDK+8; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=student.tugraz.at; 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: 6B6FE15A88 X-Spam-Score: -3.16 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: 6sAZwh5RqMIS Hi Mark, Am Montag, den 03.05.2021, 05:00 -0400 schrieb Mark H Weaver: > Leo Prikler writes: > > > Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 23:13 -0400 schrieb Mark H Weaver: > > > I don't think I fumbled on the facts at all. It's true that I > > > didn't > > > yet have _all_ of the relevant facts, but as far as I know, every > > > fact that I presented is true. > > > > > > If you disagree, can you please provide a counterexample? > > > > In your very first message you made it seems as though Raghav > > single- > > handedly authored and pushed the changes in question and called > > into > > question their reliability as a committer. The former was based on > > "facts", that turned out half-true – Raghav did push that commit, > > but > > they did so thinking that Léo did proper review, which they did not > > – > > Here, once again, you've failed to point out any of my *actual* words > to back up your (bogus) claim that I "fumbled on the > facts". Instead, you speak of how I "made it seem". You put more > words into my mouth. If you want to read your actual words, they were > Behold, Raghav's "cosmetic changes" to our 'cairo' package Again, those were not Raghav's changes, they were added by Léo and "once again" pushed by Raghav, who trusted them on the matter. You made an incorrect assumption based on incomplete information. I call that fumbling. It was an honest mistake based on the facts you thought present at the time, but nonetheless a mistake. Please don't assume I'm acting in bad faith and throw around words like bogus lightly. I don't think I'm making any extraordinary claim here, my statements should follow from the words themselves or the interpretations of a casual observer. I am not aiming to grossly misrepresent you here, I'm trying to help you find an answer to the question > Is it possible that you read more in my messages than I > actually wrote? The answer is "Yes, always". People don't just derive raw information from messages, there's all sorts of other cues – including social cues – that swing with them. Even in newspaper articles or scientific literature, there is such a thing as framing. You absolutely have to consider many forms of subtext both when reading and when writing. I hope this clears up any remaining misconceptions. If not and you're fine having me as conversation partner, I'm still willing to answer (some) questions off-list. Again, I am not attacking you for calling attention to an objectively bad commit, I think it was right of you to do so. All of what I'm saying here should at worst be seen as "criticism of your tone". Regards, Leo