[Development] Qbs development

[Tuukka Turunen]

Hi,

Not taking a stand to this particular issue, we in general are sometimes not very good in taking incremental steps. If some review becomes very long, taking months to complete, it rarely is the best way to tackle the issue. It can be better to split to multiple smaller items and progress those separately (noting that sometimes it is not possible). In some cases it would be better to first merge a partial solution that improves from current state – and then take one or more additional steps to reach the end goal.

Yours,

                Tuukka

From: Иван Комиссаров <abbapoh at gmail.com>
Date: Monday, 13. September 2021 at 23.59
To: Qt development mailing list <development at qt-project.org>
Cc: Lars Knoll <lars.knoll at qt.io>, Tuukka Turunen <tuukka.turunen at qt.io>, Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenhagen at gmx.de>, Christian Kandeler <Christian.Kandeler at qt.io>
Subject: Qbs development
Hello everybody

I would like to raise an issue about Oswald Buddenhagen abusing his maintainer rights. He is constantly blocking the merge of the patchset which implements a new feature in Qbs [0]. I started working on this almost a year ago and the issue was approved for the first time in October 2020 (!). Since then, Oswald popped up more and more random topics, demanding answers to all possible questions about the overall architecture and blocking the merge. While I highly appreciate his input, I don’t think it’s productive to postpone a relatively small feature for almost a year based on the assumption that it may not fit in the overall architecture. I prefer to move forward in small step, collect use-cases from actual users’ needs and see how this feature shows itself.
Also, Oswald mainly reviews the documentation and makes assumptions about the code based onion the documentation… I find this approach flawed, since documentation does not (and should not) show the user all the complexity of the actual implementation. Another annoying part is that Oswald neither does not know the Qbs code nor has desire to read and understand parts he’s commenting on.
I’ve been tolerating such behaviour for almost a year, but now I am confident that we can and should proceed with the current implementation and that Oswald is stalling the Qbs development. We’re not moving forward, I cannot fix bugs that depend on this feature I cannot implement new features based on this one - see the list of issue blocked by the related JIRA task - [1].

Oswald has been doing this in the past [2] - instead of allowing to contribute a small fix for a simple bug, Oswald turned the patchset into a lengthy discussion about architecture… I haven’t seen any contributions from Christian Gagneraud ever since (might be unrelated, though) and the bug is not fixed as of today.
I kindly asked Oswald to remove his -2 and allow me to proceed, but he chose to ignore my request. I’d like to ask Gerrit Administrators to remove his -2 so I can proceed with the development.

Also, some actions might be taken to prevent from happening in the future - if technically possible, I’d like to request the revoke of his approver rights on the Qbs project as per this part of the Qt Governance Model:
«In extreme circumstances Approver privileges can be revoked by a vote of no confidence, proposed by an existing Approver or Maintainer and arranged by the Chief Maintainer. Privilege revocation requires a two-thirds majority vote of those Approvers and Maintainers who express an opinion.» [3]

Ivan.

[0] https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qbs/qbs/+/315910
[1] https://bugreports.qt.io/projects/QBS/issues/QBS-1604
[2] https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qbs/qbs/+/301461
[3] https://wiki.qt.io/The_Qt_Governance_Model
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20210914/5586f200/attachment-0001.html>