IRC logs of #tryton for Wednesday, 2023-07-26 #tryton log beginning Wed Jul 26 12:10:02 AM CEST 2023
-!- springwurm(~springwur@2a01:76c0:100:f500:1e74:d311:4d3a:3ae0) has joined #tryton05:08
-!- acaubet(~Thunderbi@ has joined #tryton07:21
-!- springwurm(~springwur@2a01:76c0:100:f500:2316:fad0:b324:cd70) has joined #tryton12:06
-!- cedk(~ced@gentoo/developer/cedk) has joined #tryton13:41
-!- ChanServ changed mode/#tryton -> +o cedk 13:41
cedkpokoli: if you keep skipping the review process, I will have no other option than remove you the pubisher right13:44
pokolicedk: nothing will change if you do so13:44
cedkpokoli: I give this right based on trust but you are loosing all my trust with your behavior13:46
pokolicedk: I think I already lost your trust some days ago. It will be great to talk about it13:49
pokoliDo you have time to talk about it now? If yes, please start explaining why you lost my trust13:50
pokolicedk: I have some reviews I will like to push. Do you want to review them? 14:10
cedkpokoli: I want to review all of them14:10
pokolicedk: ok, so when I can expect that you will review them all?14:10
cedkpokoli: I do not know14:11
pokolicedk: I must know because my customers are complaining because they are not fixed14:12
cedkpokoli: it is not my customer, I do review on my free time14:12
pokolicedk: how much money do you want so I can get a review? 14:14
pokolicedk: Can i just purchase a Basic suport service for reviewing? 14:21
pokoliDoes it include bug fixes?14:21
cedkpokoli: support is about fixing bug, so we provide a fix14:23
pokolicedk: Understood thanks. I will consider such option 14:23
pokolicedk: but I can not buy something for somebody how does not trust me. So I think we will need to talk about trust before I can purchase something from B2CK14:23
pokolicedk: at some point I guess you prefer to recover my trust than removing my publisher right. Am I right? 14:28
cedkpokoli: of course14:33
pokolicedk: same on my side. then better to talk about it no? 14:38
cedkpokoli: turst is earned with acts14:40
pokolicedk: to be honest I also missed some trust of you because I think that the contribution process is not equaly fair for everyone14:40
pokolicedk: Could you make a list of acts that will allow me to recover your trust? TIA14:40
cedkpokoli: it never has been the goal14:47
pokolicedk: then what is the goal?14:47
cedkpokoli: build a software with quality14:49
pokolicedk: aja, so we have a review process to ensure quality right? 15:08
pokolicedk: To be honest I think our review process far for perfect and needs to improve a lot15:10
pokoliothewise I do not think we should have issues like which is just missing a field on a view15:10
pokoliand for me the main reason is because nobody is reviewing. Do you agree? 15:11
pokoliI guess you already now it. But python project (which is by far bigger than ours). Just agreed to require review *just* for new features15:14
pokoliThird reply is very interesting:
cedkpokoli: indeed we need to have such issue, you just pick an example where discussion was needed15:16
cedkpokoli: also issue are the history of the project, MR are just temporal chat15:16
cedkand you already raise such point (maybe not with Python project) but the answer is still the same, it is not by lowering the quality requested that the quality will stay or increase15:18
pokolicedk: I never talked about changing the quality. I said: "Nobody is reviewing", which is a differnt issue15:21
pokolicedk: follown the issue example. If we waited for the review process we will never had the feedback because the review will be stalled and the module never released15:23
cedksome poeple pledge to make reviews at the TUB202315:23
pokoliYou already now: Most of people is just testing the code (and then raising issues) when it is released 15:24
pokolicedk: where are such people who pledged on the reviews?15:25
cedkpokoli:  I do not understand the example of this issue, there was an issue with a suggestion to fix, I commented about the suggestion than you make a MR15:25
cedkpokoli: I do not want to point15:25
pokolicedk: I do not need names. I'm pretty sure they won't come to make reviews 15:27
pokolicedk: I mean that which a good review process we will notice that the field was missing on the view and fixed before the release.15:28
pokoliSo no issue will be created and the quality will be higher15:28
cedkpokoli: review process is not about finding bugs15:33
cedkof course it is better if some are found15:33
pokolicedk: please say what is review process about instead of saying no...15:35
pokoliOtherwise I need to ask because I think my assumptions where completly wrong15:36
cedkpokoli: it is about quality, design, clarity15:36
pokolicedk: also for reviews just adding a field? 15:37
pokolialso, I do not see where our "quality", "design" and "clarity" standards are written, except the ones that are related to code15:41
pokoliMain problem is that nobody can learn them so reviewers will fail to review because they do not know what to ask about 15:41
pokoliAlso developers do not know which is the expected result before starting their work 15:42
pokoliby related to code I mean what is described here:
pokoliACTION leaves for today16:24
-!- cedk(~ced@gentoo/developer/cedk) has joined #tryton19:26
-!- ChanServ changed mode/#tryton -> +o cedk 19:26

Generated by 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at!