On Sun, Aug 8, 2021 at 11:34 AM Michael Meskes <meskes@postgresql.org> wrote:
> > https://postgr.es/m/CAH2-Wzk=QxtSp0H5EKV92EH0u22HVMQLHGwYP4_FA3yTiEi9Yg@mail.gmail.com
>
> This email said nothing about sending a status update or a deadline or
> any question at all, only that you'd revert the patch if I was unable
> to resolve the issue. So what's your point?
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.
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.
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).
> > I also talked about the RMT in the third person. My intent was to
> > make
>
> So? It's okay to disrespect a person if you mention the team that you
> are representing in the third person, too?
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
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.
> > You didn't say anything at all, which speaks for itself. And makes it
> > impossible for us to be flexible.
>
> Which flexibility did I ask for? It'd be nice if you only accused me of
> things I did.
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?
Again, the scope of what you're complaining about was (and still is)
unclear to me.
> Just for the record, of course I'm going to look into the issue before
> your deadline and will send a status update.
Thank you.
--
Peter Geoghegan
