You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomee.apache.org by David Blevins <da...@gmail.com> on 2017/07/01 20:53:54 UTC
Learning from this week
I’ve gone through the commit@ and dev@ archives to piece together exactly what happened on the 27th.
This type of conflict is disappointing and not the Apache Way. We need to shine a spotlight on and learn from these types of exchanges.
We have some homework to do. Everyone read this exchange in detail and with an analytical mind:
- Look for and label the mistakes made
- Focus on the behavior and not the people
- Sleep on it, review your list, then post
- Do not +1 people’s lists, post your own
We will then have an open discussion on what is wrong with this exchange. To my analysis I see 7 distinct issues in the exchange.
Jun 27, 21:34
AG> svn commit: r1800091
Jun 27, 21:41
RM> svn commit: r1800092 (revert)
Jun 27, 21:41
[dev@ list] (Fwd: svn commit: r1800091)
RM> Please don't publish this, it breaks existing links which is
pby sthg we don't want to do now. Pinged Ivan about it
Jun 27, 21:51
AG> svn commit: r1800093
Jun 27, 21:56
RM> svn commit: r1800094 (revert)
Jun 27, 22:56
[dev@ list] (Re: TomEE Documentation)
RM> PS - cause it appeared unobvious on jira: we should try to
keep current bookmarks as much as possible cause users already
complained we changed them and it is now "done" (= we dont get
complains anymore or very rarely) so i don't feel comfortable
breaking it again
Jun 27, 22:12
[Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
AG> Romain Manni-Bucau did you seriously just overwrite my commit?
Jun 27, 22:13
[Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
RM> yep, sent a mail on the list explaining why we can't accept
this patch as that when you committed (forwarding the commit mail
to dev@) + second commit pushed build temp files (target/) which
shouldnt be.
Jun 27, 22:17
AG> svn commit: r1800095
Jun 27, 22:18
[Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
AG> You are simply unbelievable.
Jun 27, 22:19
[Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
AG> This ticket is in progress, and I was working on it. How dare
you!
Jun 27, 22:20
[Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
AG> What do you think the staging is for?
Jun 27, 22:20
[Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
RM> ...did you notice you broke bookmarks and messed up the repo?
dont think it is being unbelievable to fix it. Also pushing a
patch without reviewing it is not good too.
Jun 27, 22:21
[Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
AG> On what planet is this acceptable?
Jun 27, 22:21
[Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
AG> You are arrogant beyond belief!
Jun 27, 22:22
[Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
RM> probably the same planet where ignoring a list dicussion which
is not finished (website structure) is acceptable :D
Jun 27, 22:22
RM> svn commit: r1800097 (revert)
Jun 27, 22:27
[Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
AG> No Romain. This ticket was flagged, and with your usual
arrogance you just trash other peoples work. I was in the process
of reviewing it. Pushing to stage is perfectly valid. This is
simply not acceptable.
Jun 27, 22:27
[Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
AG> I will be escalating this incident.
Jun 27, 22:29
[Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
AG> Thanks Ivan - This is a nice improvement
This went on for a while and then spilled over to this thread:
"Suffocating development environment"
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/1306bfc0bb78ef47517db6e3866bb750a72458796f9895545dc39cd6@%3Cdev.tomee.apache.org%3E
--
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com
Re: Learning from this week
Posted by David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>.
Strike that, the title in the other email is negative and I agree we should go past it.
If people are talked out, then let me give my perspective.
It’s great hearing from Andy, Romain, Gurkan, Jon G, Jon F, and Mark. You are all contributing to the strength of the community.
We do have more people in the community who have remained silent. This is an opportunity to reinforce the positives you value in the community. I hope the more positive title encourages you.
Here are some of the anti-patterns I see and how we can do better.
- arguing or agreeing in real-time / slow it down
When exchanges go too fast, regardless of if they are positive or
negative, you are not providing enough space for others to enter the
conversation. Your argument or your mutual decision does not
represent the community. 20 exchanges over 3 mediums in about 50
minutes is far too fast.
Slow it down: add a one or two hour gap or overnight gap between
repeat responses to the same person.
- revert-than-review
In proper commit-than-review, the commit stands until discussion
finishes. In proper review-than-commit, the commit is held until
discussion finishes. Revert-than-review is effectively the same as
review-than-commit, but unequally applied.
We should pick one approach and apply it consistently.
- personal attacks & antagonism / appologize & hug-it-out
Calling someone arrogant is a personal attack. Giving negative
feedback and using a smiley-face emoticon is antagonism. Neither
are tolerated.
My advice: you should appologize to each and hug it out for this
situation to truly be "right."
- code-over-community / community-over-code
This one can be a squishy topic with unclear lines for some peple.
There is a simple way to measure your actions. Let's give a
scenario: A person commits code and it is "wrong". Do you a) fix
the code or b) fix the person?
Chosing A is code-over-community. Even if you put a note on the list
explaining why, the person will still feel they got their hand
slapped for touching the repo. A positive tone won't help. The
person will feel educated and disabled rather than educated and
enabled. They will also feel the time the invested is wasted and be
less likely to invest more. The end result is the code was given
priority over the person. Over time you end up with a lot of code
and no people.
"Fixing the person" means helping them to solve them problem. Point
them in the right direction, give some options, explain the
challenges, suggest some revisions. Anything that allows them to
fail-forward without taking the problem away from them.
You should give the person who made the mistake the chance to fix
it.
- righteousness & smiting / nurturing & enabling
If I had to try and read minds, I'd guess Andy was thinking, "I
represent the community, they want this injustice to stop." Romain
was likely thinking, "I represent the community, they want the links
to work." You both, however, excluded each other from the
definition of community. If you had both viewed each other as
someone in the community you needed to nurture and protect, the
exchange would have gone differently.
In my experience when you feel the most righteous, that's the time
to walk away from the keyboard. Write your note then sleep on it.
The usual outcome of correcting injustices while you are angry is in
the process you commit other injustices.
To know in the moment if you are attempting to smite someone, ask
yourself this simple question: am I investing my time to make the
other person wrong, or am I investing my time to make the other
person right?
- discouraging contributors / encouraging contributors
Most people do not have confidence in approaching a community they
view as filled with only experts. When they see those experts
fight, there is no chance they will enter that community.
We will want to be extremely and overtly nice to each other and be
on our best behavior.
Seeing situations like this handled positively can actually increase
the likelyhood of people contributing because they learn "mistakes
are ok."
With that I’ll say, Mistakes Are Ok. Everyone is being genuinely good and open in this thread and that’s the most important thing.
Re: Learning from this week
Posted by David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>.
Happy to discuss over in that thread, but there are still some points we missed and need to learn from before we move on. I’ll follow up.
--
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com
> On Jul 2, 2017, at 1:32 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> We already got this discussion on the thread you mentionned David and think
> we ended up by recognizing some errors but only good wills from all parties.
>
> We also got from that some process enhancements I think we would need to
> write down when any of us would have time.
>
> So not sure we need another thread about it. Let's get back on actual work
> and try to lock the process yo avoid these ambiguities again.
>
> Le 1 juil. 2017 23:52, "David Blevins" <da...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>> I think it would be fair to give Andy and Romain the first responses.
>>
>> - Andy, do you see anything you may have said or did in your exchange
>> with Romain that you feel is not the Apache way?
>>
>> - Romain, do you see anything you may have said or did in your exchange
>> with Andy that you feel is not the Apache way?
>>
>>
>> --
>> David Blevins
>> http://twitter.com/dblevins
>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>>
>>> On Jul 1, 2017, at 1:53 PM, David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I’ve gone through the commit@ and dev@ archives to piece together
>> exactly what happened on the 27th.
>>>
>>> This type of conflict is disappointing and not the Apache Way. We need
>> to shine a spotlight on and learn from these types of exchanges.
>>>
>>> We have some homework to do. Everyone read this exchange in detail and
>> with an analytical mind:
>>>
>>> - Look for and label the mistakes made
>>> - Focus on the behavior and not the people
>>> - Sleep on it, review your list, then post
>>> - Do not +1 people’s lists, post your own
>>>
>>> We will then have an open discussion on what is wrong with this
>> exchange. To my analysis I see 7 distinct issues in the exchange.
>>>
>>>
>>> Jun 27, 21:34
>>> AG> svn commit: r1800091
>>>
>>> Jun 27, 21:41
>>> RM> svn commit: r1800092 (revert)
>>>
>>> Jun 27, 21:41
>>> [dev@ list] (Fwd: svn commit: r1800091)
>>> RM> Please don't publish this, it breaks existing links which is
>>> pby sthg we don't want to do now. Pinged Ivan about it
>>>
>>> Jun 27, 21:51
>>> AG> svn commit: r1800093
>>>
>>> Jun 27, 21:56
>>> RM> svn commit: r1800094 (revert)
>>>
>>> Jun 27, 22:56
>>> [dev@ list] (Re: TomEE Documentation)
>>> RM> PS - cause it appeared unobvious on jira: we should try to
>>> keep current bookmarks as much as possible cause users already
>>> complained we changed them and it is now "done" (= we dont get
>>> complains anymore or very rarely) so i don't feel comfortable
>>> breaking it again
>>>
>>> Jun 27, 22:12
>>> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
>>> AG> Romain Manni-Bucau did you seriously just overwrite my commit?
>>>
>>> Jun 27, 22:13
>>> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
>>> RM> yep, sent a mail on the list explaining why we can't accept
>>> this patch as that when you committed (forwarding the commit mail
>>> to dev@) + second commit pushed build temp files (target/) which
>>> shouldnt be.
>>>
>>> Jun 27, 22:17
>>> AG> svn commit: r1800095
>>>
>>> Jun 27, 22:18
>>> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
>>> AG> You are simply unbelievable.
>>>
>>> Jun 27, 22:19
>>> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
>>> AG> This ticket is in progress, and I was working on it. How dare
>>> you!
>>>
>>> Jun 27, 22:20
>>> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
>>> AG> What do you think the staging is for?
>>>
>>> Jun 27, 22:20
>>> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
>>> RM> ...did you notice you broke bookmarks and messed up the repo?
>>> dont think it is being unbelievable to fix it. Also pushing a
>>> patch without reviewing it is not good too.
>>>
>>> Jun 27, 22:21
>>> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
>>> AG> On what planet is this acceptable?
>>>
>>> Jun 27, 22:21
>>> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
>>> AG> You are arrogant beyond belief!
>>>
>>> Jun 27, 22:22
>>> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
>>> RM> probably the same planet where ignoring a list dicussion which
>>> is not finished (website structure) is acceptable :D
>>>
>>> Jun 27, 22:22
>>> RM> svn commit: r1800097 (revert)
>>>
>>> Jun 27, 22:27
>>> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
>>> AG> No Romain. This ticket was flagged, and with your usual
>>> arrogance you just trash other peoples work. I was in the process
>>> of reviewing it. Pushing to stage is perfectly valid. This is
>>> simply not acceptable.
>>>
>>> Jun 27, 22:27
>>> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
>>> AG> I will be escalating this incident.
>>>
>>> Jun 27, 22:29
>>> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
>>> AG> Thanks Ivan - This is a nice improvement
>>>
>>> This went on for a while and then spilled over to this thread:
>>>
>>> "Suffocating development environment"
>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/1306bfc0bb78ef47517db6e3866bb7
>> 50a72458796f9895545dc39cd6@%3Cdev.tomee.apache.org%3E
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> David Blevins
>>> http://twitter.com/dblevins
>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>>>
>>
>>
Re: Learning from this week
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID>.
+1
Only the ones who don't work make no failures ;)
Let's learn from it and move on.
LieGrue,
strub
> Am 02.07.2017 um 10:32 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
>
> We already got this discussion on the thread you mentionned David and think
> we ended up by recognizing some errors but only good wills from all parties.
>
> We also got from that some process enhancements I think we would need to
> write down when any of us would have time.
>
> So not sure we need another thread about it. Let's get back on actual work
> and try to lock the process yo avoid these ambiguities again.
>
> Le 1 juil. 2017 23:52, "David Blevins" <da...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>> I think it would be fair to give Andy and Romain the first responses.
>>
>> - Andy, do you see anything you may have said or did in your exchange
>> with Romain that you feel is not the Apache way?
>>
>> - Romain, do you see anything you may have said or did in your exchange
>> with Andy that you feel is not the Apache way?
>>
>>
>> --
>> David Blevins
>> http://twitter.com/dblevins
>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>>
>>> On Jul 1, 2017, at 1:53 PM, David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I’ve gone through the commit@ and dev@ archives to piece together
>> exactly what happened on the 27th.
>>>
>>> This type of conflict is disappointing and not the Apache Way. We need
>> to shine a spotlight on and learn from these types of exchanges.
>>>
>>> We have some homework to do. Everyone read this exchange in detail and
>> with an analytical mind:
>>>
>>> - Look for and label the mistakes made
>>> - Focus on the behavior and not the people
>>> - Sleep on it, review your list, then post
>>> - Do not +1 people’s lists, post your own
>>>
>>> We will then have an open discussion on what is wrong with this
>> exchange. To my analysis I see 7 distinct issues in the exchange.
>>>
>>>
>>> Jun 27, 21:34
>>> AG> svn commit: r1800091
>>>
>>> Jun 27, 21:41
>>> RM> svn commit: r1800092 (revert)
>>>
>>> Jun 27, 21:41
>>> [dev@ list] (Fwd: svn commit: r1800091)
>>> RM> Please don't publish this, it breaks existing links which is
>>> pby sthg we don't want to do now. Pinged Ivan about it
>>>
>>> Jun 27, 21:51
>>> AG> svn commit: r1800093
>>>
>>> Jun 27, 21:56
>>> RM> svn commit: r1800094 (revert)
>>>
>>> Jun 27, 22:56
>>> [dev@ list] (Re: TomEE Documentation)
>>> RM> PS - cause it appeared unobvious on jira: we should try to
>>> keep current bookmarks as much as possible cause users already
>>> complained we changed them and it is now "done" (= we dont get
>>> complains anymore or very rarely) so i don't feel comfortable
>>> breaking it again
>>>
>>> Jun 27, 22:12
>>> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
>>> AG> Romain Manni-Bucau did you seriously just overwrite my commit?
>>>
>>> Jun 27, 22:13
>>> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
>>> RM> yep, sent a mail on the list explaining why we can't accept
>>> this patch as that when you committed (forwarding the commit mail
>>> to dev@) + second commit pushed build temp files (target/) which
>>> shouldnt be.
>>>
>>> Jun 27, 22:17
>>> AG> svn commit: r1800095
>>>
>>> Jun 27, 22:18
>>> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
>>> AG> You are simply unbelievable.
>>>
>>> Jun 27, 22:19
>>> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
>>> AG> This ticket is in progress, and I was working on it. How dare
>>> you!
>>>
>>> Jun 27, 22:20
>>> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
>>> AG> What do you think the staging is for?
>>>
>>> Jun 27, 22:20
>>> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
>>> RM> ...did you notice you broke bookmarks and messed up the repo?
>>> dont think it is being unbelievable to fix it. Also pushing a
>>> patch without reviewing it is not good too.
>>>
>>> Jun 27, 22:21
>>> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
>>> AG> On what planet is this acceptable?
>>>
>>> Jun 27, 22:21
>>> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
>>> AG> You are arrogant beyond belief!
>>>
>>> Jun 27, 22:22
>>> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
>>> RM> probably the same planet where ignoring a list dicussion which
>>> is not finished (website structure) is acceptable :D
>>>
>>> Jun 27, 22:22
>>> RM> svn commit: r1800097 (revert)
>>>
>>> Jun 27, 22:27
>>> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
>>> AG> No Romain. This ticket was flagged, and with your usual
>>> arrogance you just trash other peoples work. I was in the process
>>> of reviewing it. Pushing to stage is perfectly valid. This is
>>> simply not acceptable.
>>>
>>> Jun 27, 22:27
>>> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
>>> AG> I will be escalating this incident.
>>>
>>> Jun 27, 22:29
>>> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
>>> AG> Thanks Ivan - This is a nice improvement
>>>
>>> This went on for a while and then spilled over to this thread:
>>>
>>> "Suffocating development environment"
>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/1306bfc0bb78ef47517db6e3866bb7
>> 50a72458796f9895545dc39cd6@%3Cdev.tomee.apache.org%3E
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> David Blevins
>>> http://twitter.com/dblevins
>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>>>
>>
>>
Re: Learning from this week
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
We already got this discussion on the thread you mentionned David and think
we ended up by recognizing some errors but only good wills from all parties.
We also got from that some process enhancements I think we would need to
write down when any of us would have time.
So not sure we need another thread about it. Let's get back on actual work
and try to lock the process yo avoid these ambiguities again.
Le 1 juil. 2017 23:52, "David Blevins" <da...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> I think it would be fair to give Andy and Romain the first responses.
>
> - Andy, do you see anything you may have said or did in your exchange
> with Romain that you feel is not the Apache way?
>
> - Romain, do you see anything you may have said or did in your exchange
> with Andy that you feel is not the Apache way?
>
>
> --
> David Blevins
> http://twitter.com/dblevins
> http://www.tomitribe.com
>
> > On Jul 1, 2017, at 1:53 PM, David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I’ve gone through the commit@ and dev@ archives to piece together
> exactly what happened on the 27th.
> >
> > This type of conflict is disappointing and not the Apache Way. We need
> to shine a spotlight on and learn from these types of exchanges.
> >
> > We have some homework to do. Everyone read this exchange in detail and
> with an analytical mind:
> >
> > - Look for and label the mistakes made
> > - Focus on the behavior and not the people
> > - Sleep on it, review your list, then post
> > - Do not +1 people’s lists, post your own
> >
> > We will then have an open discussion on what is wrong with this
> exchange. To my analysis I see 7 distinct issues in the exchange.
> >
> >
> > Jun 27, 21:34
> > AG> svn commit: r1800091
> >
> > Jun 27, 21:41
> > RM> svn commit: r1800092 (revert)
> >
> > Jun 27, 21:41
> > [dev@ list] (Fwd: svn commit: r1800091)
> > RM> Please don't publish this, it breaks existing links which is
> > pby sthg we don't want to do now. Pinged Ivan about it
> >
> > Jun 27, 21:51
> > AG> svn commit: r1800093
> >
> > Jun 27, 21:56
> > RM> svn commit: r1800094 (revert)
> >
> > Jun 27, 22:56
> > [dev@ list] (Re: TomEE Documentation)
> > RM> PS - cause it appeared unobvious on jira: we should try to
> > keep current bookmarks as much as possible cause users already
> > complained we changed them and it is now "done" (= we dont get
> > complains anymore or very rarely) so i don't feel comfortable
> > breaking it again
> >
> > Jun 27, 22:12
> > [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
> > AG> Romain Manni-Bucau did you seriously just overwrite my commit?
> >
> > Jun 27, 22:13
> > [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
> > RM> yep, sent a mail on the list explaining why we can't accept
> > this patch as that when you committed (forwarding the commit mail
> > to dev@) + second commit pushed build temp files (target/) which
> > shouldnt be.
> >
> > Jun 27, 22:17
> > AG> svn commit: r1800095
> >
> > Jun 27, 22:18
> > [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
> > AG> You are simply unbelievable.
> >
> > Jun 27, 22:19
> > [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
> > AG> This ticket is in progress, and I was working on it. How dare
> > you!
> >
> > Jun 27, 22:20
> > [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
> > AG> What do you think the staging is for?
> >
> > Jun 27, 22:20
> > [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
> > RM> ...did you notice you broke bookmarks and messed up the repo?
> > dont think it is being unbelievable to fix it. Also pushing a
> > patch without reviewing it is not good too.
> >
> > Jun 27, 22:21
> > [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
> > AG> On what planet is this acceptable?
> >
> > Jun 27, 22:21
> > [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
> > AG> You are arrogant beyond belief!
> >
> > Jun 27, 22:22
> > [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
> > RM> probably the same planet where ignoring a list dicussion which
> > is not finished (website structure) is acceptable :D
> >
> > Jun 27, 22:22
> > RM> svn commit: r1800097 (revert)
> >
> > Jun 27, 22:27
> > [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
> > AG> No Romain. This ticket was flagged, and with your usual
> > arrogance you just trash other peoples work. I was in the process
> > of reviewing it. Pushing to stage is perfectly valid. This is
> > simply not acceptable.
> >
> > Jun 27, 22:27
> > [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
> > AG> I will be escalating this incident.
> >
> > Jun 27, 22:29
> > [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
> > AG> Thanks Ivan - This is a nice improvement
> >
> > This went on for a while and then spilled over to this thread:
> >
> > "Suffocating development environment"
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/1306bfc0bb78ef47517db6e3866bb7
> 50a72458796f9895545dc39cd6@%3Cdev.tomee.apache.org%3E
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > David Blevins
> > http://twitter.com/dblevins
> > http://www.tomitribe.com
> >
>
>
Re: Learning from this week
Posted by David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>.
I think it would be fair to give Andy and Romain the first responses.
- Andy, do you see anything you may have said or did in your exchange with Romain that you feel is not the Apache way?
- Romain, do you see anything you may have said or did in your exchange with Andy that you feel is not the Apache way?
--
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com
> On Jul 1, 2017, at 1:53 PM, David Blevins <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I’ve gone through the commit@ and dev@ archives to piece together exactly what happened on the 27th.
>
> This type of conflict is disappointing and not the Apache Way. We need to shine a spotlight on and learn from these types of exchanges.
>
> We have some homework to do. Everyone read this exchange in detail and with an analytical mind:
>
> - Look for and label the mistakes made
> - Focus on the behavior and not the people
> - Sleep on it, review your list, then post
> - Do not +1 people’s lists, post your own
>
> We will then have an open discussion on what is wrong with this exchange. To my analysis I see 7 distinct issues in the exchange.
>
>
> Jun 27, 21:34
> AG> svn commit: r1800091
>
> Jun 27, 21:41
> RM> svn commit: r1800092 (revert)
>
> Jun 27, 21:41
> [dev@ list] (Fwd: svn commit: r1800091)
> RM> Please don't publish this, it breaks existing links which is
> pby sthg we don't want to do now. Pinged Ivan about it
>
> Jun 27, 21:51
> AG> svn commit: r1800093
>
> Jun 27, 21:56
> RM> svn commit: r1800094 (revert)
>
> Jun 27, 22:56
> [dev@ list] (Re: TomEE Documentation)
> RM> PS - cause it appeared unobvious on jira: we should try to
> keep current bookmarks as much as possible cause users already
> complained we changed them and it is now "done" (= we dont get
> complains anymore or very rarely) so i don't feel comfortable
> breaking it again
>
> Jun 27, 22:12
> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
> AG> Romain Manni-Bucau did you seriously just overwrite my commit?
>
> Jun 27, 22:13
> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
> RM> yep, sent a mail on the list explaining why we can't accept
> this patch as that when you committed (forwarding the commit mail
> to dev@) + second commit pushed build temp files (target/) which
> shouldnt be.
>
> Jun 27, 22:17
> AG> svn commit: r1800095
>
> Jun 27, 22:18
> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
> AG> You are simply unbelievable.
>
> Jun 27, 22:19
> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
> AG> This ticket is in progress, and I was working on it. How dare
> you!
>
> Jun 27, 22:20
> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
> AG> What do you think the staging is for?
>
> Jun 27, 22:20
> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
> RM> ...did you notice you broke bookmarks and messed up the repo?
> dont think it is being unbelievable to fix it. Also pushing a
> patch without reviewing it is not good too.
>
> Jun 27, 22:21
> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
> AG> On what planet is this acceptable?
>
> Jun 27, 22:21
> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
> AG> You are arrogant beyond belief!
>
> Jun 27, 22:22
> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
> RM> probably the same planet where ignoring a list dicussion which
> is not finished (website structure) is acceptable :D
>
> Jun 27, 22:22
> RM> svn commit: r1800097 (revert)
>
> Jun 27, 22:27
> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
> AG> No Romain. This ticket was flagged, and with your usual
> arrogance you just trash other peoples work. I was in the process
> of reviewing it. Pushing to stage is perfectly valid. This is
> simply not acceptable.
>
> Jun 27, 22:27
> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
> AG> I will be escalating this incident.
>
> Jun 27, 22:29
> [Commented] (TOMEE-2078)
> AG> Thanks Ivan - This is a nice improvement
>
> This went on for a while and then spilled over to this thread:
>
> "Suffocating development environment"
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/1306bfc0bb78ef47517db6e3866bb750a72458796f9895545dc39cd6@%3Cdev.tomee.apache.org%3E
>
>
>
> --
> David Blevins
> http://twitter.com/dblevins
> http://www.tomitribe.com
>