Re: ECPG bug fix: DECALRE STATEMENT and DEALLOCATE, DESCRIBE

> I think that it's crystal clear what I meant in the email of July 30.
> I meant: it's not okay that you're simply ignoring the RMT. You
> hadn't
> even made a token effort at that point. For example you didn't give
> the proposed fix a cursory 15 minute review, just so we had some very
> rough idea of where things stand. You still haven't.

How do you know I didn't spend 15 minutes looking at the patch and the
whole email thread? I surely did and it was more than 15 minutes, but
not enough to give a meaningful comment. If you can do it in 15
minutes, great for you, I cannot.

The meaning of your email of July 30 was crystal clear, yes. It means
you'd revert the patch if I didn't resolve the issue. This is literally
what it says. If you meant to say "It's not okay that you're simply
ignoring the RMT. You hadn't even made a token effort at that point."
it might have been helpful if you said that, instead of having me guess
if there was a hidden meaning in your email.

Besides, I have not ignored the RMT. I don't know why you keep
insisting on something that is simply not true.

> My understanding of what you're taking issue with (perhaps a flawed
> understanding) is that you think that you have been treated unfairly
> or arbitrarily in general. That's why I brought up the email of July
> 30 yesterday. So my point was: no, you haven't been treated unfairly.

Yes, this is a flawed understanding. I'm sorry you came to that
understanding, I though my emails were pretty clear as to what I was
objecting to.

> If you only take issue with the specific tone and tenor of my email
> from Friday (the email that specified a deadline), and not the
> content
> itself, then maybe the timeline and the wider context are not so
> important.
>
> I am still unsure about whether your concern is limited to the tone
> of
> the email from Friday, or if you also take exception to the content
> of
> that email (and the wider context).

At the risk of repeating myself, my concern is *only* the rude and
disrespectful way of addressing me in the third person while talking to
me directly. Again, I though I made that clear in my first email about
the topic and every one that followed.

> Perhaps the tone of my email from Friday was unhelpful. Even still, I
> am surprised that you seem to think that it was totally outrageous --
> especially given the context. It was the first email that you

The context never makes a derogative communication okay, at least not
in my opinion.

> responded to *at all* on this thread, with the exception of your
> original terse response. I am not well practised in communicating
> with
> a committer that just doesn't engage with the RMT at all. This is all
> new to me. I admit that I found it awkward to write the email for my
> own reasons.

I was *never* asked for *any* response in *any* email, save the
original technical discussion, which I did answer with telling people
that I'm lacking time but will eventually get to it. Just to be
precise, your email from July 30 told me and everyone how this will be
handled. A reasonable procedure, albeit not one we'd like to see
happen. But why should I answer and what? It's not that you bring this
up as a discussion point, but as a fact.

> I brought up flexibility to point out that this could have been
> avoided. If you needed more time, why didn't you simply ask for it?

The first conversation that brought up the time issue was your email
that started this thread. There you set a deadline which I understand
and accept. But then I never said a word against it, so the question
remains, why accusing me of something I never did?

> Again, the scope of what you're complaining about was (and still is)
> unclear to me.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea how to explain it more clearly. I'm not
asking for any favor or special treatment, I just ask to be treated
like a person.

Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De
Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org)
Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org