(Replies inline.) On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Torbjörn Granlund wrote: > [To gmp-discuss readers: This started at gmp-bugs, first as a couple of > reports about assumed GMP bugs, then with the subject used here.] > > ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > > I think it is crucially important that you as a community recognize that > this behavior is not acceptable. There’s nothing personal in doing > that; it’s the behavior that we should condemn, not the person. > > Let's not exaggerate; sending sloppy bug reports might be considered as > disrespectful, but I wouldn't go so far as calling "this behavior" > "unacceptable". We're making a mistake if we assume malice when we read > something we do not like. > To an outsider, who is perhaps unfamiliar with common software development practices, sloppy bug reports are easy mistakes to make. I doubt that the reporter had any ill intent. > > Mike Mohr writes: > > I have seen many examples of this type of conduct from him, both > towards myself as well as others. I am a software engineer who > works in Silicon Valley, and I cannot imagine working with someone > who is frequently abrasive and disparaging. Such an individual > would not last very long on my team. > > We're all humans and I shall not exaggerate my critisism of sloppy bug > reports, and I shall not sink to making an ad hominem response. > > [I'm going back to doing productive work now. I will not respond further > to this thread, but I respect that others might want to continue, and I > will read the contributions. Please use gmp-discuss, the gmp-bugs list > is for bug reports.] > Torbjörn, I sincerely apologize if my initial response was interpreted as an ad hominem attack. It was certainly not intended as such. I actually spent a good amount of time weighing whether I should respond at all, followed by writing and rewriting several parts of the response. The initial paragraph, where I mention how valuable your contributions are to the GMP project, is missing from your inline response. The second paragraph seems harsher than I intended when read out of context. Your response to the original bug report was accurate; there was insufficient information in it. I am very aware of how frustrating incomplete bug reports can be, especially when working on a project for free in your spare time. My only intent was to share constructive criticism regarding how you responded to the reporter. > > -- > Torbjörn > Please encrypt, key id 0xC8601622 > _______________________________________________ > gmp-discuss mailing list > gmp-discuss@gmplib.org > https://gmplib.org/mailman/listinfo/gmp-discuss >