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:
Marc Lehmann
Date:
March 24, 2013 03:05
Subject:
Re: [perl #117239] Re: [perl #117259] Re: Bleadperlv5.17.9-200-g0e0ab62 breaks MLEHMANN/JSON-XS-2.33.tar.gz
Message ID:
20130324030519.GC3832@schmorp.de
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 09:34:17AM -0700, Dave Mitchell via RT <perlbug-followup@perl.org> 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:
I stand corrected, and apologise for that.
> > > 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,
He quoted a compiler error message, gave some lines of C code, and some
cryptic comment with no indication on what to change to what, or what he
changed into what.
> you could change the line
>
> HE *hes [count];
> to
[...]
He wrote no such thing, neither clearly not implied nor even hinting at
that.
You just made this up by actually editing what he wrote and putting it
into a context you made up, so it suits your story.
How low can you go, Dave?
While in hindsight he might have intended his mail to be a patch, he
clearly failed to indicate it.
> I have no opinion as to whether it was a good or complete patch, but it
> was a patch.
A patch is, at the very least, is a description of changes to apply.
Quoting a compiler error, writing some random lines of C and then claiming
"Already seems to be much more portable for that part." is not, by any
stretch, such a description of changes.
> > 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.
If you don't want to be accused of lieing you just have to stop doing it.
The above example of falsifying the e-mail you talk about is a good
example.
> > 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.
Yeah, because you didn't even try to look at the whole story. You see part of
the evidence, and then decide that making untrue accusations is ok.
You might be forgiven to come to the wrong conclusion, but the conclusion
is still wrong.
> > 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.
I disagree, but the way you misrepresent mails to suit your needs doesn't
surprise me.
> > What exactly should I have attempted, and what exactly would that have
> > changed? Was I factually wrong about anything related to that change?
Since you skirted answwering the questions, I assume I wasn't wrong after
all, so your implication that I should have enquired more was wrong.
> 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.
Given that these methods are well known, trivial, and explained by me later
on, I didn't see the need to explain them.
However, I gave far more explanations than Yves in his reply, or any later
reply, ever did.
All that the responsible person was capable of saying was "you are wrong",
while refusing to explain why.
My initial mail was, _in comparison_, an encyclopedia of mitigation
methods.
> So you weren't entering into a constructive dialogue, you were just bashing.
As my interaction with reasonable members of the list has shown, I did enter
into a constructive dialog.
It's hard to enter in a constructive dialog if the majority of p5p, and
the person responsoble for the patch, makes wrong claims and can't be
bothered to show any evidence whatsoever.
> > 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).
I don't think I gave you any reason to think that, and the person who
apparently did the patch stated a completely different reason than you
did just now (avoid an algorithmic complexity attack).
Note also that leaking the details of the hash seed is not the primary
motivation behind the patch at all. The primary motivation is to not allow
an algorithmic complexity attack, and not leaking the seed was seen as the
best way to mitigate this.
> 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".
Except this is not about a difference in opinion, but about you making an
unfounded (and wrong) statement about me.
Misrepresenting what you actually said as an opinion, of course, fits into
the pattern of misrepresentig facts so they fit your narrative.
> > Making this up doesn't make it true. Nowhere did I say or imply that, as
>
> To quote from your original email:
>
[snip]
>
> My one-line summary may have been a touch hyperbolic,
Also simply wrong, so it seems you admit that you made it up.
> fairly accurately implies that you made a large, sweeping claim about
> perl's current development; one which, by the way, I completely
> disagree with.
Maybe, but that's not what you said. What you said was just made up, which
is the point.
> Once again you accuse me of being a liar.
It seems to be factual, since you are well aware that the many things you
claim are not actually true.
> Doing a personal attack appears to always your first choice.
It's not a personal attack if it's true, and it was clearly not my first
choice.
> I think it perfectly clear that I have not lied a single time in my
> emails in this thread.
Sure, you were just bending the truth unti it broke or so. We might disagree
about some subtle points about what "lie" means, but making false statements
while you are aware that you don't know their truth, and misquoting mails,
certainly counts as a lie, to me.
> Oh, and please stop calling me a liar. It is unjustified and deeply
> offensive
If you find it offensive then stop doing it, Dave. If you would refrain
from massaging quotes, grossly misrepresenting what was said and stop
making unfounded claims as if you knew they were true you might have a
point.
> > 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.
Another lie.
> > The staggering amount of bullshit that you pull out of your arse is
> > staggering.
>
> Oh look, there you go again.
Yeah, it gets old quickly. As yves put it... "you made me say that".
If you wouldn't make up all this bullshit, I wouldn't have to call it
bullshit.
Seriously, you don't pull anything out of your arse, but you still make it
up nevertheless.
> > > 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.
I assume your refusal to back up your claim means that you admit you made
it up.
> > Didn't happen, so now I do question your integrity.
>
> There you go again
Great argument to back up your claims.
> > 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?
I don't think so.
> > 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.
And I didn't say so, Dave, so take your strawmen ad burn it somewhere else.
What I do believe, and what should have been clear from what I stated so
clearly, is that you have an inflated ego. Your statement clearly sounds as
if you are doing basically all the work.
> Once again I will point out that I have not lied a single time.
Let me point out then that I never in my life wrote a single ad hominem,
ever.
> This is my final communication with you.
If your assortment of deliberate misinformation could even be called
"communication". But I guess, literally, it is a form of communication. Your
form of communication.
--
The choice of a Deliantra, the free code+content MORPG
-----==- _GNU_ http://www.deliantra.net
----==-- _ generation
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / schmorp@schmorp.de
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next