Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from March 2013
Re: [perl #117239] Re: [perl #117259] Re: Bleadperlv5.17.9-200-g0e0ab62 breaks MLEHMANN/JSON-XS-2.33.tar.gz
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next
From:
Dave Mitchell
Date:
March 23, 2013 16:33
Subject:
Re: [perl #117239] Re: [perl #117259] Re: Bleadperlv5.17.9-200-g0e0ab62 breaks MLEHMANN/JSON-XS-2.33.tar.gz
Message ID:
20130323163323.GG2409@iabyn.com
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 03:32:07PM +0100, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> Dave, you took my *private* reply and again posted it to the list. Unlike
> my mistake, this was hardly a simple mistake by you, because all I did is
> reply to your original mail, while you *manually* added the list address
> back.
Completely untrue. I took your public email:
Message-ID: <20130323110751.GB2845@schmorp.de>
To: Dave Mitchell via RT <perlbug-followup@perl.org>
and made a public reply to it, to <perlbug-followup@perl.org>.
I subsequently saw your follow-up email where you said you had made
that email public by mistake; if I had seen that in time, I would have
manually altered my reply to be private.
You sent a second email to me privately, which I replied to privately:
Message-ID: <20130323131406.GE2409@iabyn.com>
To: Marc Lehmann <schmorp@schmorp.de>
In-Reply-To: <20130323110243.GA2845@schmorp.de>
At no point did I change any of the To/CC fields manually.
> Since you are dragging this back to the list *again*, I need to answer it
> here.
You imply that I have made private threads public at least twice. I have
n fact done so zero times.
> No thanks for making this list an even worse place, but I am sure you feel
> like some angel of justice or so, even though socially your behaviour is
> that of a troll.
No, I try very hard to be polite and accommodating on public lists,
although like all humans, I have bad days. You have a consistent pattern of
being inflammatory and showing no consideration for others.
I have never *once* made a deliberately trolling post in my 30 years online.
> > Lets look at
> >
> > https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=42462
> >
> > He made a bug report about your code not supporting older compilers
> > (admittedly not phrased well), and provided a small patch.
>
> There was no patch as has been pointed out before.
It was clearly and unambiguously a patch. It wasn't in diff format, but it
was clearly indicating that to make your code more portable, you could
change the line:
HE *hes [count];
to
#if defined(__BORLANDC__) || defined(_MSC_VER) || defined(__STDC__)
HE **hes = Perl_malloc (count * sizeof (HE));
#else
HE *hes [count];
#endif
I have no opinion as to whether it was a good or complete patch, but it
was a patch.
> Making up lies like
> these just makes clear to me that you are not honest.
A classic Marc-ism. Take a slight argument over semantics and immediately
accuse your opponent of lying.
>
> > Straight off the bat, rude and attacking the *person*.
>
> That's not "straight off the bat", that's a reply to a rude and
> unnecessary mail by merjin, and not the first one either.
>
> You might claim I have little tolerance to bullshit, but looking at only
> part of the mail exchange and then making conclusions is unwarranted.
I am just going on the evidence that was presented to me: a bug report
that was replied to in an astonishingly rude manner.
> It's merely an attempt at character assassination.
No, its just an accurate comment: it was your initial reply to the ticket,
it was rude, and it attacked the person.
> > You got a message showing that a recent change to blead had caused some of
> > the tests in one of your modules to fail. Your response was a complete
> > rant.
>
> It definitely was a rant (as I wrote myself), but while I have no clue
> what you mean with "complete rant", you are probably wrong about that.
By that, I meant nearly everything in your initial email contained broad,
sweeping criticisms.
> > You made no attempt to enquire about the background to the changes,
>
> I was well informed about the problem as-is (the problem itself is old),
> and as it turned out, I was right.
>
> What exactly should I have attempted, and what exactly would that have
> changed? Was I factually wrong about anything related to that change?
The hash issue has seen extensive discussions recently, both in the
general community, in the public perl community, and in private
discussions on the perl security list. Set against that you glibly state
that there are far better ways to aviod DoS, and that yves work is
"useless". But you don't don't go on to explain what these better methods
are, or how they they will always be better than hardening the hash code.
So you weren't entering into a constructive dialogue, you were just bashing.
> No, I wasn't, so you implying that I would have had to enquire more first
> is just dishonest.
You didn't appear to be aware the technical details of the motivation
behind the insertion order perturbation (avoiding leaking details of the
hash seed).
And there you immediately leap in with another ad Homenem. A difference of
opinion as to whether you were well-enough informed is immediately
"dishonest".
> At least the current perl maintainer agreed with me on my points (that the
> wording is ambiguous and that a better patch without breakage would be
> preferred).
He also stated that the change "has been in progress for quite some time,
and has been thoroughly discussed, and it is going to stay in.
> > ranted about how we spend all our time breaking everything in perl.
>
> Making this up doesn't make it true. Nowhere did I say or imply that, as
> you you are well aware. You are a liar, which to me is the worst thing
> really.
To quote from your original email:
"the current regime of perl development - making perl worse,
breaking CPAN more and more, adding lots of incompatible changes while at
the same time requiring use feature is in the wrong for quite some time
now, and, frankly, the only reason I don't fork perl is simply that I
am not prepared to maintain yet another software package. Breaking CPAN
packages every 6 months just doesn't cut it for me"
My one-line summary may have been a touch hyperbolic, but I think it
fairly accurately implies that you made a large, sweeping claim about
perl's current development; one which, by the way, I completely
disagree with.
Once again you accuse me of being a liar. Doing a personal attack appears
to always your first choice. I think it perfectly clear that I have not
lied a single time in my emails in this thread.
> > So, I would repeat, "The lack of respect you show for the work others
> > have done for you to use, freely is staggering."
>
> And I would answer that you lie in public, not even stopping from
> reposting private replies, just to get more attention for your lies.
And as I already pointed out, I did not reply in public to a private
email. But unlike you, I am prepared to accept that you may have been
mistaken, and will not call you a liar.
Oh, and please stop calling me a liar. It is unjustified and deeply
offensive
>
> > > If at all, I should be praised for not going down to that level, but I
> > > make no illusions of that (and I don't like, nor care, for praise).
> >
> > But you immediately rush to the lowest possible, most combative level,
>
> That's not true. I might be dumb enough to only leave traces of that
> publicly, but that doesn't make it so.
Your lack of self-awareness is astonishing. At the first sign of
disagreement, you immediately attack your opponent: "liar", "troll",
"idiot", etc.
> You haven't shown even a single case (because your conclusion is based on
> lies you amde up and wrong information).
There you go again.
> The staggering amount of bullshit that you pull out of your arse is
> staggering.
Oh look, there you go again.
>
> > > If you have any grain of integrity in you, then think about that. Maybe
> > > even research history a bit. Then you will see I am right.
> >
> > Ah, after one post, already questioning my integrity.
>
> Another lie, I didn't question your integrity, I told you that if you have
> some, then you will do some better research.
There you go again.
> Didn't happen, so now I do question your integrity.
There you go again
>
> > > I will continue to provide quality software that is useful for an
> > > enourmous number of perl users despite what some freaks think of it. I'm
> > > doing it for the users, not for them.
> >
> > I will continue providing a quality perl interpreter for an enormous
> > number of perl users despite what what you think of it.
>
> Reality check: "providing a perl interpreter". Well, I provide multiple
> perl interpreters, while I doubt you currently provide any perl
> interpreter to anybody.
So the 5.14.3 tarball just spontaneously self-assembled?
> There is no doubt that you worked a lot more on perl than me and most
> people on this plane, but accusing me of disrespect and then disregarding
> the masses of people who worked on perl looks hipocritical to me.
You are an intelligent person. I don't for one *second* believe you you
read my sentence as claiming I am the only person working on the perl
interpreter, or that only my contributions matter.
> I think you have a hyperinflated ego.
Oh look, there you go again.
Just for the record, since attacking your opponent seem De Rigour in
Marc's world, I would just like to say that I think you are a deeply
unpleasant person.
> But that's fine. Spreading lies like a machine is not. If don't think I
> cna respect you anymore.
Once again I will point out that I have not lied a single time.
This is my final communication with you.
--
Dave's first rule of Opera:
If something needs saying, say it: don't warble it.
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next