Partition agreement (was: FYI... 2.0 attribute spec changing)

[Reza Naghibi <re...@apache.org>]

Werner, you are really pushing by buttons here.

Remember this email when I resigned from DeviceMap:

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/devicemap-dev/201504.mbox/%3CCAKuYhJsPzCQsS7YrEbsRtFDbGcDsC5zEozakQwJKrOcwZrnCow%40mail.gmail.com%3E

That agreement I keep on mentioning was the reason I decided to stay here
and work on 2.0.

Just a reminder that the agreement was that me and you would work on
different parts of this project and that we stay out of each others way. So
please do me a favor stop engaging on my work.

Im so very close to leaving this project and moving my work somewhere else
where I can work without your constant comments, interruptions, and
attacks. This has been going on for 2 years. You are like a never ending
nightmare...


On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I guess in that early stage it seems OK. Compared to a JSR it probably is
> no further than EDR stage right now.
>
> Where say you have a particular state of the data set and either Java or JS
> client, tagging them in a consistent way could make most sense. That was
> the main reason for any tags other than /release you'd find.
> Especially when there's something to demonstrate it is often a good idea.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Reza Naghibi <re...@naghibi.com> wrote:
>
> > While your point is valid, it doesn't change the fact that a breaking
> > change is being introduced into the specification.
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > That's why occasional snapshots would also be nice here, even if
> they're
> > > like javascript-client-2.0-alpha ;-)
> > >
> > > When ApacheCon is closer I'll have a look, but not yet.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Reza Naghibi <re...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Small chance... but just incase someone is working or looking at the
> > > > attribute spec, its going to change. Im currently putting together
> the
> > > > javascript client [1] and given that JSON is a first class citizen of
> > > > javascript, I want to make sure the JSON spec is perfect. Right now
> > > > attributes are this:
> > > >
> > > > "attributes": [ { Attribute }, { Attribute }, ... ]
> > > >
> > > > This will change to this:
> > > >
> > > > "attributes":
> > > >   {
> > > >     "patternId_1": { Attribute },
> > > >     "patternId_2": { Attribute },
> > > >     ...
> > > >   }
> > > >
> > > > This will much optimize the structure for javascript and likely other
> > > > clients.
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/devicemap/trunk/clients/2.0/javascript/
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Partition agreement (was: FYI... 2.0 attribute spec changing)

[Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>]

Look at other mailing lists and projects, e.g. Tamaya Incubator.
There are a lot of participants with sometimes strong views on certain
things.

A few aspects of API design were changed one way or the other. In a few
cases single-handedly by just one or the other committer (like you
constantly try to push things without asking others;-) Nevertheless you
won't find a single personal attack or foul-mouthing there.

There must be a reason, Tamaya proposer Anatole was recently elected Star
Spec Lead by the JCP for his archivements there.
Something you (Reza) will never archive the way you keep behaving.

Re: Partition agreement (was: FYI... 2.0 attribute spec changing)

[Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>]

Reza,

You're still the same selfish kid as before. Or some "Pop stars" who are
constantly on their last tour before ending their career;-)

And still play the same egomania trip instead of working as a team.
Everyone else does, people help where they can. So stop distracting the
project, then it may be more succesful than if you just keep shouting
around for no reason.

I got 4 different talks accepted for ApacheCon Europe after a DeviceMap
session last year. The community and those reviewing session proposals
appreciate what I have to talk about. And I'm speaking about ALL of
DeviceMap, not just the Simple DDR impementation or the Classifier(s).
Everyone who cared provided input on the proposal, at least Bertrand also
gave feedback on certain parts. I don't recall you actually did, but I
quoted the Wiki in a representative way.

You accepted suggestions like sticking to established terms like "model",
"vendor", etc. Nobody asks to take every suggestion, but just stop the
pathetic FUD, noise, and Djihadist behavior, that would save all of us
having to listen to this crap and you (at least a bit) of a better person.

Cheers,
Werner

On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Reza Naghibi <re...@apache.org> wrote:

> Werner, you are really pushing by buttons here.
>
> Remember this email when I resigned from DeviceMap:
>
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/devicemap-dev/201504.mbox/%3CCAKuYhJsPzCQsS7YrEbsRtFDbGcDsC5zEozakQwJKrOcwZrnCow%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> That agreement I keep on mentioning was the reason I decided to stay here
> and work on 2.0.
>
> Just a reminder that the agreement was that me and you would work on
> different parts of this project and that we stay out of each others way. So
> please do me a favor stop engaging on my work.
>
> Im so very close to leaving this project and moving my work somewhere else
> where I can work without your constant comments, interruptions, and
> attacks. This has been going on for 2 years. You are like a never ending
> nightmare...
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I guess in that early stage it seems OK. Compared to a JSR it probably is
> > no further than EDR stage right now.
> >
> > Where say you have a particular state of the data set and either Java or
> JS
> > client, tagging them in a consistent way could make most sense. That was
> > the main reason for any tags other than /release you'd find.
> > Especially when there's something to demonstrate it is often a good idea.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Reza Naghibi <re...@naghibi.com> wrote:
> >
> > > While your point is valid, it doesn't change the fact that a breaking
> > > change is being introduced into the specification.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > That's why occasional snapshots would also be nice here, even if
> > they're
> > > > like javascript-client-2.0-alpha ;-)
> > > >
> > > > When ApacheCon is closer I'll have a look, but not yet.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Reza Naghibi <re...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Small chance... but just incase someone is working or looking at
> the
> > > > > attribute spec, its going to change. Im currently putting together
> > the
> > > > > javascript client [1] and given that JSON is a first class citizen
> of
> > > > > javascript, I want to make sure the JSON spec is perfect. Right now
> > > > > attributes are this:
> > > > >
> > > > > "attributes": [ { Attribute }, { Attribute }, ... ]
> > > > >
> > > > > This will change to this:
> > > > >
> > > > > "attributes":
> > > > >   {
> > > > >     "patternId_1": { Attribute },
> > > > >     "patternId_2": { Attribute },
> > > > >     ...
> > > > >   }
> > > > >
> > > > > This will much optimize the structure for javascript and likely
> other
> > > > > clients.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > >
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/devicemap/trunk/clients/2.0/javascript/
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Partition agreement (was: FYI... 2.0 attribute spec changing)

[Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>]

Ignore Reza's comments and continous expressions of a bad temper....

Areas like "examples" were confirmed to be of public interest (and only one
PMC member/committer bothered to make them work ever since) and not the
"WURFL walled garden" certain folders are considered to be.

We discussed /whiteboard, and in reality if you look at what some of you at
Sling do, a single effort by a single committer to show others what he
thinks may improve the project should never have started under
/trunk/2.0/... but /whiteboard/rezan like you do at Sling.

Werner

On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Reza Naghibi <re...@apache.org> wrote:
> > ...Just a reminder that the agreement was that me and you would work on
> > different parts of this project and that we stay out of each others way.
> So
> > please do me a favor stop engaging on my work...
>
> Note that as far as I'm concerned you should feel free to ignore any
> of Werner's comments that don't respect the perimeter that was
> established based on the discussions at [1]
>
> -Bertrand
>
> [1]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/devicemap-dev/201504.mbox/%3CCAKuYhJsPzCQsS7YrEbsRtFDbGcDsC5zEozakQwJKrOcwZrnCow%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>

Re: Partition agreement (was: FYI... 2.0 attribute spec changing)

[Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>]

On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Reza Naghibi <re...@apache.org> wrote:
> ...Just a reminder that the agreement was that me and you would work on
> different parts of this project and that we stay out of each others way. So
> please do me a favor stop engaging on my work...

Note that as far as I'm concerned you should feel free to ignore any
of Werner's comments that don't respect the perimeter that was
established based on the discussions at [1]

-Bertrand

[1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/devicemap-dev/201504.mbox/%3CCAKuYhJsPzCQsS7YrEbsRtFDbGcDsC5zEozakQwJKrOcwZrnCow%40mail.gmail.com%3E