Discussion:
Weird reaction to pull request over at Arch Linux ARM
(too old to reply)
Christopher Reimer
2017-01-27 18:27:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hello list,

I'd like to get some feedback on this pull request discussion over at
Arch Linux ARM: https://github.com/archlinuxarm/PKGBUILDs/pull/1444
(Backup: http://pastebin.com/x8H0mNiE)

Short summary: I wanted to contribute a simple patch to enable support
for Banana Pi hardware. I tried that a few years back and got besides
some other concerns the answer that it cannot be added, because at this
time there were no upstream support and I accepted that.

This is no longer the case, so I thought it must be possible to add
support now.

I also noticed a few other pull request trying exactly that, which were
instantly closed by Kevin Mihelich without any reasonable explanation.
That's why I expected some resistance and prepared myself to
counterargument a few of his concerns.

And I think I did quite good. Good enough to make him ignore me.

Why am I writing this to the Arch Linux mailing list? Well, for quite
some time I thought Arch Linux ARM is Arch Linux. And I think there are
a lot more out there who think so.
Therefore I think behavior like this could hurt the overall reputation
of Arch Linux. Especially if a future goal of Arch Linux might be ARM
support and Kevin Mihelich somehow joins the team.

Did I miss something? Do I expect too much? I don't know.

Thanks

Christopher Reimer
Bartłomiej Piotrowski
2017-01-27 18:54:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher Reimer
Therefore I think behavior like this could hurt the overall reputation
of Arch Linux. Especially if a future goal of Arch Linux might be ARM
support and Kevin Mihelich somehow joins the team.
Even if, it is an independent project and Kevin has every right to
decide what he wants to spend his time on. Nothing to do there from Arch
perspective.

Bartłomiej
Eli Schwartz via arch-general
2017-01-27 20:41:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher Reimer
I also noticed a few other pull request trying exactly that, which
were instantly closed by Kevin Mihelich without any reasonable
explanation. That's why I expected some resistance and prepared
myself to counterargument a few of his concerns.
And I think I did quite good. Good enough to make him ignore me.
I am speaking specifically to what is or will be officially
supported. The community is free to do whatever it wants outside of
official support, and many people do this already for a number of
boards. Merely including the package here would imply official
support to the vast majority of users despite any 72pt blinking red
warnings we could put up state otherwise. This then leads to said
users expecting us to fix their problems.
This position is no different than it's been throughout the life of
this project. Official support means an active, contributing
developer has access to the hardware and can actively develop
packages and address issues for that target. The hardware that we
choose to spend our time and money on is our own choice, not a
decision forced upon us.
And I see nowhere that you have answered this IMO highly reasonable
objection.
Post by Christopher Reimer
Why am I writing this to the Arch Linux mailing list? Well, for quite
some time I thought Arch Linux ARM is Arch Linux. And I think there
are a lot more out there who think so. Therefore I think behavior
like this could hurt the overall reputation of Arch Linux. Especially
if a future goal of Arch Linux might be ARM support and Kevin
Mihelich somehow joins the team.
I fail to see how the actions of an unaffiliated dev of a different
project could hurt the Arch Linux reputation, moreso when said actions
are reasonable actions. I especially don't see why you feel the need to
malign the good name of Mr. Mihelich against the future *possibility* of
him joining an official Arch Linux port (which shows far more "ulterior
motives" and "weird reactions" in your own actions than in his).

On the other hand, you are busy giving this mailing list a reputation
for spam. :( We don't care how he slighted you or which neighbor's dog
he may or may not have killed, please direct your personal campaigns
against the person of Mr. Mihelich ELSEWHERE.
Post by Christopher Reimer
/dev/null
--
Eli Schwartz
ProgAndy
2017-01-27 21:38:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher Reimer
I also noticed a few other pull request trying exactly that, which
were instantly closed by Kevin Mihelich without any reasonable
explanation. That's why I expected some resistance and prepared
myself to counterargument a few of his concerns.
And I think I did quite good. Good enough to make him ignore me.
I am speaking specifically to what is or will be officially
supported. The community is free to do whatever it wants outside of
official support, and many people do this already for a number of
boards. Merely including the package here would imply official
support to the vast majority of users despite any 72pt blinking red
warnings we could put up state otherwise. This then leads to said
users expecting us to fix their problems.
This position is no different than it's been throughout the life of
this project. Official support means an active, contributing
developer has access to the hardware and can actively develop
packages and address issues for that target. The hardware that we
choose to spend our time and money on is our own choice, not a
decision forced upon us.
That seems to be a very reasonable position. If the patch is so simple,
then why don't you maintain it and provide the necessary binary
packages? You should be able to create a custom user repository for your
modifications just like we do for Arch Linux for some kernels.


--
Andreas
Christopher Reimer
2017-01-27 22:36:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ProgAndy
Post by Christopher Reimer
I also noticed a few other pull request trying exactly that, which
were instantly closed by Kevin Mihelich without any reasonable
explanation. That's why I expected some resistance and prepared
myself to counterargument a few of his concerns.
And I think I did quite good. Good enough to make him ignore me.
I am speaking specifically to what is or will be officially
supported. The community is free to do whatever it wants outside of
official support, and many people do this already for a number of
boards. Merely including the package here would imply official
support to the vast majority of users despite any 72pt blinking red
warnings we could put up state otherwise. This then leads to said
users expecting us to fix their problems.
This position is no different than it's been throughout the life of
this project. Official support means an active, contributing
developer has access to the hardware and can actively develop
packages and address issues for that target. The hardware that we
choose to spend our time and money on is our own choice, not a
decision forced upon us.
That seems to be a very reasonable position. If the patch is so simple,
then why don't you maintain it and provide the necessary binary
packages? You should be able to create a custom user repository for your
modifications just like we do for Arch Linux for some kernels.
I expected something like this. And as a matter of fact I plan to
provide all necessary parts on my webspace. I even plan to compile and
provide at least all other sunxi based uboot variants.

http://c-reimer.de/alarm/

More will come in a few days. When I have time to write a script to make
things easier.
Post by ProgAndy
--
Andreas
Yaro Kasear
2017-01-27 20:57:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher Reimer
Hello list,
I'd like to get some feedback on this pull request discussion over at Arch
http://pastebin.com/x8H0mNiE)
Short summary: I wanted to contribute a simple patch to enable support for
Banana Pi hardware. I tried that a few years back and got besides some
other concerns the answer that it cannot be added, because at this time
there were no upstream support and I accepted that.
This is no longer the case, so I thought it must be possible to add
support now.
I also noticed a few other pull request trying exactly that, which were
instantly closed by Kevin Mihelich without any reasonable explanation.
That's why I expected some resistance and prepared myself to
counterargument a few of his concerns.
And I think I did quite good. Good enough to make him ignore me.
Why am I writing this to the Arch Linux mailing list? Well, for quite some
time I thought Arch Linux ARM is Arch Linux. And I think there are a lot
more out there who think so.
Therefore I think behavior like this could hurt the overall reputation of
Arch Linux. Especially if a future goal of Arch Linux might be ARM support
and Kevin Mihelich somehow joins the team.
Did I miss something? Do I expect too much? I don't know.
Thanks
Christopher Reimer
This really has nothing to do with the Arch community.

Arch ARM is its own project. Now, I'm not a TU or a developer, but in my
view trying to complain to an upstream project when downstream doesn't do
what a contributor wants reflects more badly on Arch's reputation.

Even if people on Arch cared, what could they even do about it? Are you
expecting the Arch developers to somehow pull some imaginary authority over
the Archlinux ARM project? That'd be even worse to Arch's reputation if
they though they could just boss around forks of Arch.

The maintainer of a project has zero obligation to take on pull requests.
Complaining to Archlinux users about it won't change it, especially when
his response to your whining on his GitHub page was reasonable.

If you don't like it, feel free to fork Archlinux ARM. Nothing's stopping
you. But stopping filling this list with nonsense and your personal
problems with the developers of projects Arch has nothing to do with.

Yaro
Lord Nyxxie via arch-general
2017-01-27 21:14:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Reading the github thread, I'm not sure you'll be able to change his mind.
As said by others, it's his right to reject the support of counterfeit
Raspberry Pi's should he want to. I don't think his reasoning makes much
sense, but it's his project to do what he wants with. Consider persuing
other options to give people the benifits of your work (fork, some sort of
patch, etc)
Post by Christopher Reimer
Post by Christopher Reimer
Hello list,
I'd like to get some feedback on this pull request discussion over at
Arch
Post by Christopher Reimer
http://pastebin.com/x8H0mNiE)
Short summary: I wanted to contribute a simple patch to enable support
for
Post by Christopher Reimer
Banana Pi hardware. I tried that a few years back and got besides some
other concerns the answer that it cannot be added, because at this time
there were no upstream support and I accepted that.
This is no longer the case, so I thought it must be possible to add
support now.
I also noticed a few other pull request trying exactly that, which were
instantly closed by Kevin Mihelich without any reasonable explanation.
That's why I expected some resistance and prepared myself to
counterargument a few of his concerns.
And I think I did quite good. Good enough to make him ignore me.
Why am I writing this to the Arch Linux mailing list? Well, for quite
some
Post by Christopher Reimer
time I thought Arch Linux ARM is Arch Linux. And I think there are a lot
more out there who think so.
Therefore I think behavior like this could hurt the overall reputation of
Arch Linux. Especially if a future goal of Arch Linux might be ARM
support
Post by Christopher Reimer
and Kevin Mihelich somehow joins the team.
Did I miss something? Do I expect too much? I don't know.
Thanks
Christopher Reimer
This really has nothing to do with the Arch community.
Arch ARM is its own project. Now, I'm not a TU or a developer, but in my
view trying to complain to an upstream project when downstream doesn't do
what a contributor wants reflects more badly on Arch's reputation.
Even if people on Arch cared, what could they even do about it? Are you
expecting the Arch developers to somehow pull some imaginary authority over
the Archlinux ARM project? That'd be even worse to Arch's reputation if
they though they could just boss around forks of Arch.
The maintainer of a project has zero obligation to take on pull requests.
Complaining to Archlinux users about it won't change it, especially when
his response to your whining on his GitHub page was reasonable.
If you don't like it, feel free to fork Archlinux ARM. Nothing's stopping
you. But stopping filling this list with nonsense and your personal
problems with the developers of projects Arch has nothing to do with.
Yaro
Loading...