| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
asturm
Developer
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 8942
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 20067
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 24, 2019 9:06 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
The posts seem related to comments made in the split usr thread about maintaining custom ebuilds. Splitting is almost never an ideal solution. Merging those posts back to the split usr thread would be the easeist, but not necessairly best approach, and they dodn't yet seem to warrant their own thread.
_________________
Quis separabit? Quo animo? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asturm
Developer
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 8942
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 24, 2019 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pjp wrote: | | Splitting is almost never an ideal solution. Merging those posts back to the split usr thread would be the easeist, but not necessairly best approach, and they dodn't yet seem to warrant their own thread. |
And that's why I'm glad not to be a moderator.
- split /usr is en route to the usual systemd thread fate
- profile thread ends in non profile offtopic chatter
It's only chat after all, so why bother. But it also means none of these discussions ever come to an end, because !discipline |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 20067
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 24, 2019 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not "why bother" so much as "do the least harm" (a guideline if not official rule). And, yes, being in Chat makes it more difficult to keep discussion highlily limited as conversation is generaly fairly organic. That said, it also generally becomes obvoious when meaningful discussion ends.
_________________
Quis separabit? Quo animo? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asturm
Developer
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 8942
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2019 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pjp wrote: | | Not "why bother" so much as "do the least harm" (a guideline if not official rule). And, yes, being in Chat makes it more difficult to keep discussion highlily limited as conversation is generaly fairly organic. That said, it also generally becomes obvoious when meaningful discussion ends. |
Both threads are now finding their natural ending in joint RH conspiracy prose. How could it be any way else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anon-E-moose
Watchman
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 6103
Location: Dallas area
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2019 7:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| asturm wrote: | | pjp wrote: | | Not "why bother" so much as "do the least harm" (a guideline if not official rule). And, yes, being in Chat makes it more difficult to keep discussion highlily limited as conversation is generaly fairly organic. That said, it also generally becomes obvoious when meaningful discussion ends. |
Both threads are now finding their natural ending in joint RH conspiracy prose. How could it be any way else. |
If it distresses you so much, might I suggest that you simply skip over those threads and only deal with threads where a dev is really needed to answer technical questions. Personally I see no problem with chit-chatting, even if it goes a direction that I might not like, but that's just me being open minded. And it's not like I have a problem with you participating and stating your views, but this "mommy, mommy they're doing things I don't like" attitude is getting tiring.
Edit to add: I apologize to the admins/mods as I know this isn't a report. If this is split off or simply deleted, it's all fine by me.
_________________
PRIME x570-pro, 3700x, 6.1 zen kernel
gcc 13, profile 17.0 (custom bare multilib), openrc, wayland |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asturm
Developer
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 8942
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2019 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't care anymore, already. But no one entering these threads for their title is getting out of them any wiser, if anything, for the worse. "do the least harm" moderation style led to the predicted outcome. It's just a different version of the typical systemd thread derailment, with the same participants forever treading their hamster mills. Enter thread, copy, paste and go. And I'm fully aware that many times threads can't be saved after a split because users don't notice their content has been cleaned up; but that's not the case here, as the *new* thread was derailed immediately.
| Anon-E-moose wrote: | | might I suggest that you simply skip over those threads and only deal with threads where a dev is really needed to answer technical questions. |
Isn't that nice. Yes, let the echo chamber have its safe space, where technical questions will be politicised to no avail. If it distresses *you* so much that I care how threads around important topics progress, why are *you* not skipping over this thread?
| Anon-E-moose wrote: | | even if it goes a direction that I might not like, but that's just me being open minded. |
Marvelling at offtopic is no sign of open mindedness, it's just indifference. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony0945
Watchman
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 5127
Location: Illinois, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2019 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
asturm, I suppose it would be fine if the direction was to your liking. It's "chat" not a support thread.
Just more censorship of opinion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asturm
Developer
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 8942
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2019 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| offtopic is no opinion. if you don't even care to look at what is being discussed here, what point is there in even commenting? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asturm
Developer
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 8942
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
saellaven
l33t
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 648
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| asturm wrote: | | offtopic is no opinion. if you don't even care to look at what is being discussed here, what point is there in even commenting? |
You're the one trying to get speech shut down just because you disagree with the idea of hearing a differing opinion... If you don't want to discuss a topic, avoid the thread, don't cry that it exists and then attack the participants for defending their right to speak. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asturm
Developer
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 8942
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Neither you nor Tony0945 have looked at the initial report that got this going. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ant P.
Watchman
Joined: 18 Apr 2009
Posts: 6920
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| asturm wrote: | | It's just a different version of the typical systemd thread derailment, with the same participants forever treading their hamster mills. Enter thread, copy, paste and go. |
I note the irony of a developer, who spends half their time in the report thread and the other half telling people they're wrong, complaining that a user writing some code is “thread derailment”. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hu
Administrator
Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 21780
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 26, 2019 2:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| asturm wrote: | | But no one entering these threads for their title is getting out of them any wiser, if anything, for the worse. "do the least harm" moderation style led to the predicted outcome. |
Perhaps I cannot see the "worse" side of it because I know the arguments and the history, but could you explain why you think this thread is actively counterproductive? Participants are clearly unhappy with certain decisions, but I don't see anything in there spreading what I would consider dangerous misinformation (such as misleading people into breaking their systems, misleading people into bad decisions, or posting content likely to incite illegal activity). Since the thread is in Chat, I'm inclined to let it be unless someone clearly breaks the rules. (On that note, I am a bit unhappy with some of the posts in that thread, and will respond to those in turn.)This particular criticism is of interest to me. It's well known that the official dependency data doesn't recognize that very old openrc had built-in support for tmpfiles, and that this omission causes problems for people who choose to remain on those versions. The cited bit isn't how I would have implemented it, but it looks like a reasonable workaround for people who want to use an old openrc and want not to maintain forks of numerous individual ebuilds. Aside from some grousing about this particular omission, I can't recall any of the old-openrc crowd causing trouble related to the use of old-openrc. What is your complaint about the cited bit? Do you think they should just give up and move forward to a newer openrc? Do you dislike the particulars of how the workaround was done? | asturm wrote: | | Anon-E-moose wrote: | | might I suggest that you simply skip over those threads and only deal with threads where a dev is really needed to answer technical questions. |
Isn't that nice. Yes, let the echo chamber have its safe space, where technical questions will be politicised to no avail. If it distresses *you* so much that I care how threads around important topics progress, why are *you* not skipping over this thread? |
I don't have a problem with developers showing up in political threads, but I would prefer that the moderation team not get dragged into this quite so often. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 20067
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Muso
Veteran
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 1052
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 26, 2019 7:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm putting $50 on Tony and $2 on Asturm.
_________________
"You can lead a horticulture but you can't make her think" ~ Dorothy Parker
2021 is the year of the Linux Desktop! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asturm
Developer
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 8942
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 26, 2019 9:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hu wrote: | | This particular criticism is of interest to me. It's well known that the official dependency data doesn't recognize that very old openrc had built-in support for tmpfiles, and that this omission causes problems for people who choose to remain on those versions. The cited bit isn't how I would have implemented it, but it looks like a reasonable workaround for people who want to use an old openrc and want not to maintain forks of numerous individual ebuilds. Aside from some grousing about this particular omission, I can't recall any of the old-openrc crowd causing trouble related to the use of old-openrc. What is your complaint about the cited bit? Do you think they should just give up and move forward to a newer openrc? Do you dislike the particulars of how the workaround was done? |
Well that's baffling. When, as a moderator, you click on a link as reported in https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-8354450.html#8354450 what is going through your mind when looking at the topic of the reported thread? Or even just the last message before that post? I did not have any comment on its implementation, I did not comment on how unreasonable it is to use old openrc. Instead I took the time to find a thread where Tony's post would be of actual value (and context), so the censorship sentiment comes to nothing. It really should not be my duty to explain to you how offtopic and out of context this was. I realise this is a tedious and often fruitless task; and you can say 'well, it's chat'; but your difficulty to identify the issue here is mindboggling. If, on the other hand, your take-away from it is thinking 'maybe I should do that tmpfiles hack because profile 17.1' then we already have "the worse" right there.
| Ant P. wrote: | | ...that a user writing some code is “thread derailment”. |
I could give you that, under the premise that said code was relevant for Profile 17.1 or *any* of the preceeding posts - but it wasn't. So it seems you just get irony wrong? I don't blame you, it happens to a lot of people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 20067
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 31, 2019 4:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
@Tony0945:
After consideration, your comment is a clear violation of forum guidelines* and general courtesy.
As this incident occurred in Gentoo Chat and not one of the technical support forums, I'm banning you for 1 week (instead of the normal 2 weeks), to be lifted on or about August 7th.
Given a prior incident in Gentoo Chat which was also a violation of forum guidelines** that we did not enforce with a ban, consider self-editing prior to clicking submit.
* Guidelines: #s 1. Use common sense; 10. No personal attacks.
** # 1.
EDIT: Unbanned, 2019.08.07.
_________________
Quis separabit? Quo animo? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony0945
Watchman
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 5127
Location: Illinois, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2019 2:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pjp wrote: | @Tony0945:
* Guidelines: #s 1. Use common sense; 10. No personal attacks.
** # 1. |
| asturm wrote: | Reason: personal attack
always playing the dying swan, why... |
| George Orwell - Animal farm wrote: | | Some animals are more equal than others. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asturm
Developer
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 8942
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2019 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dear Tony0945, what is it this time? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 54396
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2019 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A wise man knows he can have the last word but chooses not to.
That's the last word in this topic.
_________________
Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Gentoo Forums Feedback
