On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 5:33 PM, rupert THURNER
<rupert.thurner(a)gmail.com> wrote:
moved up from below because I'm answering your points in the context of gitblit:
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Faidon Liambotis
<faidon(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
let me give you an example as well.
git.wikimedia.org broke, and you,
faidon, did _absolutely nothing_ to give good feedback to upstream to
improve the gitblit software.
I don't think filing that was useful or appropriate. That's akin to a
user of [[Diplopedia]] or
portlandwiki.org reporting a site outage at
WMF bugzilla.
hi faidon, i do not think you personally and WMF are
particularly
helpful in accepting contributions. because you:
* do not communicate openly the problems
What do you call
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49371 ?
* do not report upstream publically
and
https://code.google.com/p/gitblit/issues/detail?id=274 ?
* do not ask for help, and even if it gets offered you
just ignore it
with quite some arrogance
Help is *very* often welcome and accepted. (sometimes takes a while to
get outside submissions reviewed and sometimes not. there are
certainly people that can help if something's gotten stuck. e.g.
Sumana)
As Ken said, getting the site working again is often a higher priority
than making stack traces. This is especially true because it wasn't a
new issue, time had already been put into investigating it and
tweaking various parameters as well as working with upstream and it
wasn't hard to reproduce the issue. (i.e. the stack trace could be
made at other times if needed and could wait for it to be made by
someone already investigating the problem; I don't know offhand how
involved Faidon's been with the gitblit investigations but I know Chad
was very (more?) involved with it.)
-Jeremy