[PATCH] gnu: libtorrent-rasterbar: Update to 2.0.10.

Change-Id: I9056b2cb6eac9740f95daf2fb73d874ca95f1a7f

---

gnu/packages/bittorrent.scm | 32 +++++---------------------------

1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)

From 4af05095ca922bb6d0335a6e946a404d4764ac1f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001

Message-ID: <4af05095ca922bb6d0335a6e946a404d4764ac1f.1722949379.git.adam.faiz@disroot.org>

In-Reply-To: <cover.1722949379.git.adam.faiz@disroot.org>

References: <cover.1722949379.git.adam.faiz@disroot.org>

[source]<snippet>: Remove test/test_copy_file.cpp patch since it's resolved.

[native-inputs]: Remove no longer needed file (v2_empty_file.torrent).

[arguments]<#:phases>: And remove a phase copying it into the correct place.

---

gnu/packages/bittorrent.scm | 28 +++-------------------------

1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)

From 646cc0c6857c41564eda8ccc0ade07ae16a18a6c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001

Message-ID: <646cc0c6857c41564eda8ccc0ade07ae16a18a6c.1722949379.git.adam.faiz@disroot.org>

In-Reply-To: <cover.1722949379.git.adam.faiz@disroot.org>

References: <cover.1722949379.git.adam.faiz@disroot.org>

[native-inputs]: Drop labels.

---

gnu/packages/bittorrent.scm | 75 +++++++++++++++++++------------------

1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)

Adam Faiz via Guix-patches via <guix-patches@gnu.org> writes:

adjust message, not use #; , push and close.

Dear Tomas (and CC'ing the debbugs number, co-author, and committer Z572),

On Sun, Oct 06, 2024 at 07:52 PM, Tomas Volf wrote:

I understand your frustration and while I thank you for bringing this to attention (we care about attribution here!), I do think this was escalated a tiny bit in the heat of the moment. I don't see this message in the original patch thread with the other author (Adam) and committer (Z572, still relatively new), so it is quite possible they didn't see this message you sent until now.

I should say, I do think it is good to raise awareness so we can all do better, but I think we should try to give some benefit of the doubt and look for the best way forward. Mistakes happen! I had accidentally lost the author of some commits and realized after I had pushed them, raising this after with guix-devel and the original authors for what remedy they would like. Though everything was okay, I felt bad, and still do, but at least it has made me more vigilant. Let's remember we are all trying our best here and imagine ourselves on the other side.

(Side note that upstream work to help out Guix and packaging is always welcome, so thank you for that! Though that is separate from authorship of commits on the Guix side, of course.)

Part of having commit access is also accepting that mistakes will happen and you are expected to remedy, learn, and help us all do better (e.g. see https://guix.gnu.org/manual/devel/en/html_node/Commit-Access.html). This quality I would say is much more important than just number of contributions, though that experience is a more quantifiable prerequisite.

As I hope a neutral third party, in this case I would suggest reverting the commits and then reapplying them with author/co-author set appropriately. I think this issue should have been brought up more directly with the parties involved, whether or not cc-ing guix-devel helps here I can't say. As I said, I at least take it as a reminder of our responsibilities and potential mistakes when we have commit access. While I could of course take this action myself, in following the link above, I leave it to those involved first.

Let me also thank you for your contributions! I look forward to one day seeing you announced as a new committer as you continue to contribute. But I hope when you are on that side and make a mistake, as we all do, that you are given the benefit of the doubt, a chance to rectify, and help us all do better.

John

PS: I know tone is hard and easily (wrongly) assumed in written communication. Let me stress that all I wrote was meant to be understanding to your perspective and feelings (which I'm sure many would share in the same circumstances!) while also helping us reach a mutually beneficial remedy.

Hello John,

John Kehayias <john.kehayias@protonmail.com> writes:

Hm, there is probably little bit of misunderstanding here. Yes, I was

(am) a bit sad about this happening, but I did not really meant the

email as an "escalation". And I did not send it to the debbugs bug

first.

I was just reacting to the commit I saw in guix-commits mailing list.

It explicitly has guix-devel set as Reply-To (instead of, for example,

the commit author), so I assumed here (guix-devel) is where should I

raise the issue.

I fully understand people (me included) make mistakes and I did not (and

do not) assume ill intentions here.

However, re-reading my original message I do think I should have taken a

second breath and tune it down a notch (or two), for failing to do that

I apologize.

While I appreciate the suggestion from a neutral party, I do not insist

on that. This is just one patch of many that I have sent (and hopefully

will send). I would very much prefer z572 to spent time on merging new

patches instead of redoing this one. Many of my patches were applied by

z572, and I am grateful for their work.

I reacted on this above already, but I will put up an explicit

suggestion: Maybe the Reply-To on guix-commits should be the committer.

As do I :)

I appreciate your reply and calm, neutral view point trying to find a

common way forward. Thank you for weighing in.

Have a nice day,

Tomas

--

There are only two hard things in Computer Science:

cache invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors.