TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
67 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

Konstantin Gizdov
Hello,

I am Konstantin Gizdov [1] [2],
(`kgizdov`, `[hidden email]`, `[hidden email]`)

I would like to apply to be a Trusted User under Baptiste Jonglez's
sponsorship.

A few words about me:

I am currently a Particle Physics PhD at Univerisity of Edinburgh and I
have used Linux since my early teenage years. After I finished
high-school, Linux has been my main operating system. I embraced Open
Source software for a long time ago and contribute to such several
projects [2][3][4]. I have been with Arch Linux since 4+ years ago,
although only more active since 2+ years.

My main work is concentrated on Experimental Particle Physics & the LHCb
Detector at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. As part of that I have
been involved in the development, upgrade & maintenance of the
High-Level Trigger & RICH systems and LHCb's data flow [3]. I also have
experience with a lot of data processing & analysis - data distillation
& enrichment, machine learning, statistical analysis, etc - and
associated tools. Separately, I maintain several machines - a personal
web server, company server with several VMs, local workhorse server,
personal workstation & laptop (sprinkle around some RaspberryPis and
network devices here and there). This put me in a unique position to
work with many and different kinds of systems and software - ranging
from ASICs & FPGAs, through localized control systems & end-user devices
to large clusters & super computers. Daily, I use popular tools such as
VMs, docker, git, GCC, CUDA, tensorflow, Cern's ROOT, but I also run a
lot of custom and even-self made software [4][6]. All of this has been a
breeze on Arch Linux.

Thus, a couple of years ago, I decide to get more involved and
contribute. I took on the task to maintain CERN's ROOT package [7] and
since then I've involved myself heavily into that, I'm a contributor to
the project and I use it daily in my work. I have been providing this
package for many colleagues in the field, including all of its stack &
complementary tools (Pythia, XRootD & other Python tools). I have
enabled a lot of new features and worked with upstream towards new
functionality, bug fixes, etc. On top of that I have shipped several
other related projects - machine learning packages, SciKit-HEP packages
like uproot, Docker images, GitLab CIs and so on.

I have also been able to develop and publish a machine learning project
me and colleague came up with [4]. This is soon going to be a package in
SciKit-HEP and I will aim to make it package here too. Arch Linux was a
great platform for all of this. I was able to install & configure
up-to-date software easily and what I did not find, I provided for me &
others on the AUR without too much hassle.

Overall, I have to say Arch Linux (and its community) have played a key
role in me being able to do all of these things. I have found the OS
itself to be stable and flexible and the users & maintainers
approachable and direct, which I appreciate a lot. I have met a lot of
people through the Arch Linux community - forums, AUR and just saying 'I
use Arch, too!', haha.

The reason for applying to become a TU is to get even more involved and
give back to the community. If you accept me, I would like to continue
maintaining and improving my current packages as well as bring new
packages. As an AUR maintainer I basically consider it an on-going duty
already.

I would like to maintain/contribute/adopt the following:

  * Packages I would like to co-maintain:
      o python-awkward
      o libafterimage
      o xxhash
      o unuran
  * Packages I already maintain and intend to move from AUR:
      o root & root-extra
      o xrootd
      o simpletools
      o root5
      o python-root_numpy
      o python-uproot
      o python-uproot-methods
      o python-hep_ml
      o pythia
      o llvm50
      o llvm50-libs
      o clang50
  * New packages I would like to add/move from AUR:
      o cern-vdt
      o cvmfs
      o HepDrone [4]
      o python-keras
      o root_pandas (new)
      o histbook (new)
      o decaylanguage (new)
      o pyjet (new)
      o vegascope (new)
      o root_ufunc (new)
      o formulate (new)

I hope to make Arch Linux more versatile and accessible to users in data
science, high-energy physics & machine learning, and possibly as a whole.

Thank you.

--
Regards,

Konstantin

1. https://keybase.io/kgizdov
2. https://github.com/kgizdov
3. https://gitlab.cern.ch/kgizdov
4. https://github.com/Tevien/HEPDrone
5. https://github.com/scikit-hep
6. https://gitlab.cern.ch/kgizdov/pdqa-automation

signature.asc (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

Baptiste Jonglez
Hi,

On 14-10-18, Konstantin Gizdov wrote:
> I am Konstantin Gizdov [1] [2],
> (`kgizdov`, `[hidden email]`, `[hidden email]`)
>
> I would like to apply to be a Trusted User under Baptiste Jonglez's
> sponsorship.

I confirm my sponsorship of Konstantin.  Let the discussion period begin,
it seems to be a good day to apply to become a TU!

Baptiste

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

Sven-Hendrik Haase
In reply to this post by Konstantin Gizdov
On Sun, Oct 14, 2018, 22:34 Konstantin Gizdov <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I am Konstantin Gizdov [1] [2],
> (`kgizdov`, `[hidden email]`, `[hidden email]`)
>
> I would like to apply to be a Trusted User under Baptiste Jonglez's
> sponsorship.
>
> A few words about me:
>
> I am currently a Particle Physics PhD at Univerisity of Edinburgh and I
> have used Linux since my early teenage years. After I finished
> high-school, Linux has been my main operating system. I embraced Open
> Source software for a long time ago and contribute to such several
> projects [2][3][4]. I have been with Arch Linux since 4+ years ago,
> although only more active since 2+ years.
>
> My main work is concentrated on Experimental Particle Physics & the LHCb
> Detector at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. As part of that I have
> been involved in the development, upgrade & maintenance of the
> High-Level Trigger & RICH systems and LHCb's data flow [3]. I also have
> experience with a lot of data processing & analysis - data distillation
> & enrichment, machine learning, statistical analysis, etc - and
> associated tools. Separately, I maintain several machines - a personal
> web server, company server with several VMs, local workhorse server,
> personal workstation & laptop (sprinkle around some RaspberryPis and
> network devices here and there). This put me in a unique position to
> work with many and different kinds of systems and software - ranging
> from ASICs & FPGAs, through localized control systems & end-user devices
> to large clusters & super computers. Daily, I use popular tools such as
> VMs, docker, git, GCC, CUDA, tensorflow, Cern's ROOT, but I also run a
> lot of custom and even-self made software [4][6]. All of this has been a
> breeze on Arch Linux.
>
> Thus, a couple of years ago, I decide to get more involved and
> contribute. I took on the task to maintain CERN's ROOT package [7] and
> since then I've involved myself heavily into that, I'm a contributor to
> the project and I use it daily in my work. I have been providing this
> package for many colleagues in the field, including all of its stack &
> complementary tools (Pythia, XRootD & other Python tools). I have
> enabled a lot of new features and worked with upstream towards new
> functionality, bug fixes, etc. On top of that I have shipped several
> other related projects - machine learning packages, SciKit-HEP packages
> like uproot, Docker images, GitLab CIs and so on.
>
> I have also been able to develop and publish a machine learning project
> me and colleague came up with [4]. This is soon going to be a package in
> SciKit-HEP and I will aim to make it package here too. Arch Linux was a
> great platform for all of this. I was able to install & configure
> up-to-date software easily and what I did not find, I provided for me &
> others on the AUR without too much hassle.
>
> Overall, I have to say Arch Linux (and its community) have played a key
> role in me being able to do all of these things. I have found the OS
> itself to be stable and flexible and the users & maintainers
> approachable and direct, which I appreciate a lot. I have met a lot of
> people through the Arch Linux community - forums, AUR and just saying 'I
> use Arch, too!', haha.
>
> The reason for applying to become a TU is to get even more involved and
> give back to the community. If you accept me, I would like to continue
> maintaining and improving my current packages as well as bring new
> packages. As an AUR maintainer I basically consider it an on-going duty
> already.
>
> I would like to maintain/contribute/adopt the following:
>
>   * Packages I would like to co-maintain:
>       o python-awkward
>       o libafterimage
>       o xxhash
>       o unuran
>   * Packages I already maintain and intend to move from AUR:
>       o root & root-extra
>       o xrootd
>       o simpletools
>       o root5
>       o python-root_numpy
>       o python-uproot
>       o python-uproot-methods
>       o python-hep_ml
>       o pythia
>       o llvm50
>       o llvm50-libs
>       o clang50
>   * New packages I would like to add/move from AUR:
>       o cern-vdt
>       o cvmfs
>       o HepDrone [4]
>       o python-keras
>       o root_pandas (new)
>       o histbook (new)
>       o decaylanguage (new)
>       o pyjet (new)
>       o vegascope (new)
>       o root_ufunc (new)
>       o formulate (new)
>
> I hope to make Arch Linux more versatile and accessible to users in data
> science, high-energy physics & machine learning, and possibly as a whole.
>
> Thank you.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Konstantin
>
> 1. https://keybase.io/kgizdov
> 2. https://github.com/kgizdov
> 3. https://gitlab.cern.ch/kgizdov
> 4. https://github.com/Tevien/HEPDrone
> 5. https://github.com/scikit-hep
> 6. https://gitlab.cern.ch/kgizdov/pdqa-automation


Great stuff. Would you be interested in co-maintaining tensorflow, cuda and
pytorch and related packages? They sometimes cost a lot of time to fix up.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

Konstantin Gizdov
Sure, I can share the load. I've built tensorflow+cuda from scratch a
couple of times and completely understand the struggle. :)

On 14/10/2018 22:31, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 14, 2018, 22:34 Konstantin Gizdov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am Konstantin Gizdov [1] [2],
>> (`kgizdov`, `[hidden email]`, `[hidden email]`)
>>
>> I would like to apply to be a Trusted User under Baptiste Jonglez's
>> sponsorship.
>>
>> A few words about me:
>>
>> I am currently a Particle Physics PhD at Univerisity of Edinburgh and I
>> have used Linux since my early teenage years. After I finished
>> high-school, Linux has been my main operating system. I embraced Open
>> Source software for a long time ago and contribute to such several
>> projects [2][3][4]. I have been with Arch Linux since 4+ years ago,
>> although only more active since 2+ years.
>>
>> My main work is concentrated on Experimental Particle Physics & the LHCb
>> Detector at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. As part of that I have
>> been involved in the development, upgrade & maintenance of the
>> High-Level Trigger & RICH systems and LHCb's data flow [3]. I also have
>> experience with a lot of data processing & analysis - data distillation
>> & enrichment, machine learning, statistical analysis, etc - and
>> associated tools. Separately, I maintain several machines - a personal
>> web server, company server with several VMs, local workhorse server,
>> personal workstation & laptop (sprinkle around some RaspberryPis and
>> network devices here and there). This put me in a unique position to
>> work with many and different kinds of systems and software - ranging
>> from ASICs & FPGAs, through localized control systems & end-user devices
>> to large clusters & super computers. Daily, I use popular tools such as
>> VMs, docker, git, GCC, CUDA, tensorflow, Cern's ROOT, but I also run a
>> lot of custom and even-self made software [4][6]. All of this has been a
>> breeze on Arch Linux.
>>
>> Thus, a couple of years ago, I decide to get more involved and
>> contribute. I took on the task to maintain CERN's ROOT package [7] and
>> since then I've involved myself heavily into that, I'm a contributor to
>> the project and I use it daily in my work. I have been providing this
>> package for many colleagues in the field, including all of its stack &
>> complementary tools (Pythia, XRootD & other Python tools). I have
>> enabled a lot of new features and worked with upstream towards new
>> functionality, bug fixes, etc. On top of that I have shipped several
>> other related projects - machine learning packages, SciKit-HEP packages
>> like uproot, Docker images, GitLab CIs and so on.
>>
>> I have also been able to develop and publish a machine learning project
>> me and colleague came up with [4]. This is soon going to be a package in
>> SciKit-HEP and I will aim to make it package here too. Arch Linux was a
>> great platform for all of this. I was able to install & configure
>> up-to-date software easily and what I did not find, I provided for me &
>> others on the AUR without too much hassle.
>>
>> Overall, I have to say Arch Linux (and its community) have played a key
>> role in me being able to do all of these things. I have found the OS
>> itself to be stable and flexible and the users & maintainers
>> approachable and direct, which I appreciate a lot. I have met a lot of
>> people through the Arch Linux community - forums, AUR and just saying 'I
>> use Arch, too!', haha.
>>
>> The reason for applying to become a TU is to get even more involved and
>> give back to the community. If you accept me, I would like to continue
>> maintaining and improving my current packages as well as bring new
>> packages. As an AUR maintainer I basically consider it an on-going duty
>> already.
>>
>> I would like to maintain/contribute/adopt the following:
>>
>>   * Packages I would like to co-maintain:
>>       o python-awkward
>>       o libafterimage
>>       o xxhash
>>       o unuran
>>   * Packages I already maintain and intend to move from AUR:
>>       o root & root-extra
>>       o xrootd
>>       o simpletools
>>       o root5
>>       o python-root_numpy
>>       o python-uproot
>>       o python-uproot-methods
>>       o python-hep_ml
>>       o pythia
>>       o llvm50
>>       o llvm50-libs
>>       o clang50
>>   * New packages I would like to add/move from AUR:
>>       o cern-vdt
>>       o cvmfs
>>       o HepDrone [4]
>>       o python-keras
>>       o root_pandas (new)
>>       o histbook (new)
>>       o decaylanguage (new)
>>       o pyjet (new)
>>       o vegascope (new)
>>       o root_ufunc (new)
>>       o formulate (new)
>>
>> I hope to make Arch Linux more versatile and accessible to users in data
>> science, high-energy physics & machine learning, and possibly as a whole.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Konstantin
>>
>> 1. https://keybase.io/kgizdov
>> 2. https://github.com/kgizdov
>> 3. https://gitlab.cern.ch/kgizdov
>> 4. https://github.com/Tevien/HEPDrone
>> 5. https://github.com/scikit-hep
>> 6. https://gitlab.cern.ch/kgizdov/pdqa-automation
>
> Great stuff. Would you be interested in co-maintaining tensorflow, cuda and
> pytorch and related packages? They sometimes cost a lot of time to fix up.


signature.asc (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

tur-users mailing list
On 10/14/18 11:41 PM, Konstantin Gizdov wrote:
> Sure, I can share the load. I've built tensorflow+cuda from scratch a
> couple of times and completely understand the struggle. :)
>

Reminder to always bottom-post on Arch mailinglists ;)


signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

tur-users mailing list
In reply to this post by Konstantin Gizdov
Hey Konstantin,


On 10/14/18 11:41 PM, Konstantin Gizdov wrote:
>>>       o llvm50
>>>       o llvm50-libs
>>>       o clang50

Didn't dig into it myself as its easier to ask, could you maybe
elaborate why we would need those 50 versioned variants? Normally we try
to keep the number of versioned variants to the very minimum and only
throw them in as a last resort because of mayor incompatibilities :)

cheers,
Levente


signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

Konstantin Gizdov
On 14/10/2018 23:24, Levente Polyak via aur-general wrote:

> Hey Konstantin,
>
>
> On 10/14/18 11:41 PM, Konstantin Gizdov wrote:
>>>>       o llvm50
>>>>       o llvm50-libs
>>>>       o clang50
> Didn't dig into it myself as its easier to ask, could you maybe
> elaborate why we would need those 50 versioned variants? Normally we try
> to keep the number of versioned variants to the very minimum and only
> throw them in as a last resort because of mayor incompatibilities :)
>
> cheers,
> Levente
>
Yeah, I know. This is from way back and a core issue. As it stands now,
ROOT requires a custom patched version of Clang 5.x.x to build it's
Cling interpreter. A year ago, it couldn't even build against an
external LLVM. I've been pushing for some patches upstream to make LLVM
external. For the moment, ROOT still requires a built-in build of Clang
5.0, but that obviously does not include all latest fixes upstream. So
moving to LLVM 5.0.2 external and pushing for more changes to support
Clang external too will correct that. And the next step will be to more
to more recent LLVM stack versions.

Regards,

Konstantin



signature.asc (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

tur-users mailing list
In reply to this post by Konstantin Gizdov
I must point out this very recent mailing list thread:
https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034279.html

In this thread, you:

1) whine about someone taking over *your* packages, because you're the one that
knows them and has cared for them and, after all, they're YOURS.

2) whine about how things were handled on the bug tracker, thinking that this
whining is how things get done. It's not.

3) Tell bald faced lies about how things transpired on the bug tracker.

You really think this makes you TU material? Really?


attachment0 (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

Konstantin Gizdov
On 26/10/2018 15:27, Doug Newgard via aur-general wrote:
> I must point out this very recent mailing list thread:
> https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034279.html
>
> In this thread, you:
>
> 1) whine about someone taking over *your* packages, because you're the one that
> knows them and has cared for them and, after all, they're YOURS.

I did no such thing. I opened the thread by thanking Felix for picking
them up and asked a few questions about the plans for the packages and
how to pass on what I know, because I was having trouble doing that over
the bug tracker. What ensued after (the responses) was not my doing. I
tried to respond to every and all comments respectfully and I think you
will find a through discussion was had and a lot of details were sorted.

Part of that was revealing that the ROOT stack was being picked up -
yes, I care about it as it directly affects my profession and I've given
thorough reasons why. I **never claimed the packages were mine** - if
you talk about the usage of the word 'my', it clearly refers to me being
the maintainer. I said I've put work into them, continue to do so and
wanted to make sure I can pass that on in full. My TU application is me
trying to do that.

> 2) whine about how things were handled on the bug tracker, thinking that this
> whining is how things get done. It's not.

Again, I did no such thing. I explained what happened and asked how can
I do better. I was told I have to stick to the bug tracker. Thus, I said
why I think this approach is failing in that particular case and gave
exampes.

By the way, it was only because of that email that one of the bugs was
reopened (by Eli) and fixed, otherwise it was ignored. Seems to me my
email worked fine.

> 3) Tell bald faced lies about how things transpired on the bug tracker.
I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. In the many emails I wrote that
evening, I got confused about one bug being closed, where it wasn't. You
tried to call me out for lying and my whole point being wrong, but later
**you yourself sent a follow up email to correct your own statement**. I
acknowledged my mistake on the spot. Surely, we can agree all of us make
mistakes. **In no way or form was I telling bald faced lies.**
> You really think this makes you TU material? Really?

Yes, I think the way I have handled the situation makes me trustworthy.
I care for the packages I maintain and the community enough to make sure
the packages are left in excellent shape and hands so people can depend
on them. I also have serious respect for the people here, community &
TUs - as I've said before, ArchLinux has been good to me I want to good
to it. This is why I made the fuss, because I care, but I also took
everyone's perspective in and kept a working discussion.

Moreover, I am still trying to have a respectful conversation, give my
reasoning and make my point heard in the face of you trying to
completely misrepresent my intentions, what I said and did, and what I
stand for.

Regards,

Konstantin





signature.asc (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

tur-users mailing list
On 10/26/18 12:29 PM, Konstantin Gizdov wrote:

> On 26/10/2018 15:27, Doug Newgard via aur-general wrote:
>> I must point out this very recent mailing list thread:
>> https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034279.html
>>
>> In this thread, you:
>>
>> 1) whine about someone taking over *your* packages, because you're the one that
>> knows them and has cared for them and, after all, they're YOURS.
>
> I did no such thing. I opened the thread by thanking Felix for picking
> them up and asked a few questions about the plans for the packages and
> how to pass on what I know, because I was having trouble doing that over
> the bug tracker. What ensued after (the responses) was not my doing. I
> tried to respond to every and all comments respectfully and I think you
> will find a through discussion was had and a lot of details were sorted.
s/respectfully/passive-aggressively/

By "details sorted" do you mean, we told you to stfu and stop snidely
implying oppression?

> Part of that was revealing that the ROOT stack was being picked up -
> yes, I care about it as it directly affects my profession and I've given
> thorough reasons why. I **never claimed the packages were mine** - if
> you talk about the usage of the word 'my', it clearly refers to me being
> the maintainer. I said I've put work into them, continue to do so and
> wanted to make sure I can pass that on in full. My TU application is me
> trying to do that.

Thereby implying you're unsure whether we're fit to maintain it, and you
wish to pass your personal judgment, as though we needed your approval
in order to function as a distribution.

I assure you you're not the only person who has ever put work into an
AUR package and then seen it be moved to community. Most of those people
are cheerfully happy to see it moved, and their instinctive reaction is
*not* "gosh, I wonder if they really know enough to package this
according to my exacting standards".

>> 2) whine about how things were handled on the bug tracker, thinking that this
>> whining is how things get done. It's not.
>
> Again, I did no such thing. I explained what happened and asked how can
> I do better. I was told I have to stick to the bug tracker. Thus, I said
> why I think this approach is failing in that particular case and gave
> exampes.
>
> By the way, it was only because of that email that one of the bugs was
> reopened (by Eli) and fixed, otherwise it was ignored. Seems to me my
> email worked fine.
Thanks for lying about me. In case I had any doubt what to vote, I've
definitely made up my mind now and I'm voting against you.

Just in case I was not somehow clear in the past:

YOU FILED A REQUEST TO HAVE THE BUG RE-OPENED. THAT REQUEST WAS
EVALUATED ON ITS OWN MERIT.

Spamming the mailing list with whiny complaints does not help. Scimmia
and I get notifications about all re-open requests, and we have a
special admin interface to view all such pending requests. These get
evaluated on merit.

We will get to them when we get to them. There is no conspiracy to
ignore you until you complain on the mailing list like a whiny baby.

I hereby swear to you, and will happily have it notarized if it makes
you any happier, that I completely ignored your thread when reading your
mailing list spam.

I will acknowledge that due to noticing your mailing list spam, I took a
look at your re-open request.
A grand total of maybe two hours before I would have looked at it *ANYWAY*.

I don't appreciate having to justify myself over inanities like this
conversation, and respectfully ask you to cease and desist on your
repeated lies about me.

>> 3) Tell bald faced lies about how things transpired on the bug tracker.
> I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. In the many emails I wrote that
> evening, I got confused about one bug being closed, where it wasn't. You
> tried to call me out for lying and my whole point being wrong, but later
> **you yourself sent a follow up email to correct your own statement**. I
> acknowledged my mistake on the spot. Surely, we can agree all of us make
> mistakes. **In no way or form was I telling bald faced lies.**
>> You really think this makes you TU material? Really?
>
> Yes, I think the way I have handled the situation makes me trustworthy.
> I care for the packages I maintain and the community enough to make sure
> the packages are left in excellent shape and hands so people can depend
> on them. I also have serious respect for the people here, community &
> TUs - as I've said before, ArchLinux has been good to me I want to good
> to it. This is why I made the fuss, because I care, but I also took
> everyone's perspective in and kept a working discussion.
I read this differently, you care so much that you don't trust anyone
else to do it right. You're a control freak, and I don't want to have to
deal with you on the team, no matter how capable you are as a programmer.

Other TUs can make their own decisions of course.

--
Eli Schwartz
Bug Wrangler and Trusted User


signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

tur-users mailing list
On 10/26/18 12:49 PM, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> I hereby swear to you, and will happily have it notarized if it makes
> you any happier, that I completely ignored your thread when reading your
> mailing list spam.

That is, when reading your reopen request.

--
Eli Schwartz
Bug Wrangler and Trusted User


signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

tur-users mailing list
In reply to this post by Konstantin Gizdov
On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 17:29:31 +0100
Konstantin Gizdov <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 26/10/2018 15:27, Doug Newgard via aur-general wrote:
> > I must point out this very recent mailing list thread:
> > https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034279.html
> >
> > In this thread, you:
> >
> > 1) whine about someone taking over *your* packages, because you're the one that
> > knows them and has cared for them and, after all, they're YOURS.  
>
> I did no such thing. I opened the thread by thanking Felix for picking
> them up and asked a few questions about the plans for the packages and
> how to pass on what I know, because I was having trouble doing that over
> the bug tracker. What ensued after (the responses) was not my doing. I
> tried to respond to every and all comments respectfully and I think you
> will find a through discussion was had and a lot of details were sorted.
>
> Part of that was revealing that the ROOT stack was being picked up -
> yes, I care about it as it directly affects my profession and I've given
> thorough reasons why. I **never claimed the packages were mine** - if
> you talk about the usage of the word 'my', it clearly refers to me being
> the maintainer. I said I've put work into them, continue to do so and
> wanted to make sure I can pass that on in full. My TU application is me
> trying to do that.
You did thank Felix, but then went on to make your true intent extremely clear.
You specifically ask why your packages were moved (there doesn't have to be a
reason), and say things like:

"The reason I'm asking is because over the years I've added and been
maintaining some professional software and these packages are part of that
chain. Colleagues in the field have become accustomed to me for packaging
with care and updating with new features."

The aforementioned thanks would appear to be perfunctory, like saying "No
offense, but you're an idiot".

Reference:
https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034279.html

> > 2) whine about how things were handled on the bug tracker, thinking that this
> > whining is how things get done. It's not.  
>
> Again, I did no such thing. I explained what happened and asked how can
> I do better. I was told I have to stick to the bug tracker. Thus, I said
> why I think this approach is failing in that particular case and gave
> exampes.
>
> By the way, it was only because of that email that one of the bugs was
> reopened (by Eli) and fixed, otherwise it was ignored. Seems to me my
> email worked fine.
And this attitude right here is a major problem. One ticket was closed because
it was very clearly not a bug. The second one that was closed was closed based
on the information you gave, the reopen request contained different
information. Based on that, I didn't deny the reopen request and decided to
wait until I got home to try it. In the mean time, Eli took a look at the
request and reopened it.

In the middle of all of that, and completely independently and unrelated, you
sent your email to this list, but you still seem to be under the impression
that it was a good thing and actually accomplished something. I can assure you,
it accomplished nothing good.

>
> > 3) Tell bald faced lies about how things transpired on the bug tracker.  
> I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. In the many emails I wrote that
> evening, I got confused about one bug being closed, where it wasn't. You
> tried to call me out for lying and my whole point being wrong, but later
> **you yourself sent a follow up email to correct your own statement**. I
> acknowledged my mistake on the spot. Surely, we can agree all of us make
> mistakes. **In no way or form was I telling bald faced lies.**

So you opened 3 tickets. Two were closed and *one* (1) was denied a reopen. Yet
you claim "I tried to re-open all 3 bugs but was denied with little to no
comment/explanation." There is too much disparity here to be a typo or a
mistake.

Reference:
https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034286.html

attachment0 (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

tur-users mailing list
In reply to this post by Konstantin Gizdov
On 10/26/18 12:29 PM, Konstantin Gizdov wrote:
>> 3) Tell bald faced lies about how things transpired on the bug tracker.
> I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. In the many emails I wrote that
> evening, I got confused about one bug being closed, where it wasn't. You
> tried to call me out for lying and my whole point being wrong, but later
> **you yourself sent a follow up email to correct your own statement**. I
> acknowledged my mistake on the spot. Surely, we can agree all of us make
> mistakes. **In no way or form was I telling bald faced lies.**

Are you referring to this correction right here?
https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034288.html

By using my privileged power of reading comprehension, I've uncovered
the astonishing fact that he "corrected" his statement by fixing the
sentence fragment "was was never denied" to "one was never denied".

(He also expounded on his previous point by providing additional
information which his first post never touched on at all.)

I'm not sure what subtle point you're trying to make here about
"everyone makes mistakes", but when you come to the mailing list
spreading assumptions and false information, and someone else corrects
their own typo, then you're not even comparing similar concepts, so you
should probably look for different proofs.

Also it reeks of you trying to inflate someone else's mistake in order
to make yours look less bad, because your reference here is, while
"technically" not false, nevertheless designed to make readers *think*
that Doug retracted something he said about you, rather than correcting
a nonsensical typo that could very well have come from autocorrect.

And, your false claims about how the bugtracker is being handled is
indeed something that could use help in looking less bad.

--
Eli Schwartz
Bug Wrangler and Trusted User


signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

Konstantin Gizdov
In reply to this post by tur-users mailing list
On 26/10/2018 17:49, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:

> On 10/26/18 12:29 PM, Konstantin Gizdov wrote:
>> On 26/10/2018 15:27, Doug Newgard via aur-general wrote:
>>> I must point out this very recent mailing list thread:
>>> https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034279.html
>>>
>>> In this thread, you:
>>>
>>> 1) whine about someone taking over *your* packages, because you're the one that
>>> knows them and has cared for them and, after all, they're YOURS.
>> I did no such thing. I opened the thread by thanking Felix for picking
>> them up and asked a few questions about the plans for the packages and
>> how to pass on what I know, because I was having trouble doing that over
>> the bug tracker. What ensued after (the responses) was not my doing. I
>> tried to respond to every and all comments respectfully and I think you
>> will find a through discussion was had and a lot of details were sorted.
> s/respectfully/passive-aggressively/
>
> By "details sorted" do you mean, we told you to stfu and stop snidely
> implying oppression?
>
>> Part of that was revealing that the ROOT stack was being picked up -
>> yes, I care about it as it directly affects my profession and I've given
>> thorough reasons why. I **never claimed the packages were mine** - if
>> you talk about the usage of the word 'my', it clearly refers to me being
>> the maintainer. I said I've put work into them, continue to do so and
>> wanted to make sure I can pass that on in full. My TU application is me
>> trying to do that.
> Thereby implying you're unsure whether we're fit to maintain it, and you
> wish to pass your personal judgment, as though we needed your approval
> in order to function as a distribution.
>
> I assure you you're not the only person who has ever put work into an
> AUR package and then seen it be moved to community. Most of those people
> are cheerfully happy to see it moved, and their instinctive reaction is
> *not* "gosh, I wonder if they really know enough to package this
> according to my exacting standards".
>
>>> 2) whine about how things were handled on the bug tracker, thinking that this
>>> whining is how things get done. It's not.
>> Again, I did no such thing. I explained what happened and asked how can
>> I do better. I was told I have to stick to the bug tracker. Thus, I said
>> why I think this approach is failing in that particular case and gave
>> exampes.
>>
>> By the way, it was only because of that email that one of the bugs was
>> reopened (by Eli) and fixed, otherwise it was ignored. Seems to me my
>> email worked fine.
> Thanks for lying about me. In case I had any doubt what to vote, I've
> definitely made up my mind now and I'm voting against you.
>
> Just in case I was not somehow clear in the past:
>
> YOU FILED A REQUEST TO HAVE THE BUG RE-OPENED. THAT REQUEST WAS
> EVALUATED ON ITS OWN MERIT.
>
> Spamming the mailing list with whiny complaints does not help. Scimmia
> and I get notifications about all re-open requests, and we have a
> special admin interface to view all such pending requests. These get
> evaluated on merit.
>
> We will get to them when we get to them. There is no conspiracy to
> ignore you until you complain on the mailing list like a whiny baby.
>
> I hereby swear to you, and will happily have it notarized if it makes
> you any happier, that I completely ignored your thread when reading your
> mailing list spam.
>
> I will acknowledge that due to noticing your mailing list spam, I took a
> look at your re-open request.
> A grand total of maybe two hours before I would have looked at it *ANYWAY*.
>
> I don't appreciate having to justify myself over inanities like this
> conversation, and respectfully ask you to cease and desist on your
> repeated lies about me.
>
>>> 3) Tell bald faced lies about how things transpired on the bug tracker.
>> I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. In the many emails I wrote that
>> evening, I got confused about one bug being closed, where it wasn't. You
>> tried to call me out for lying and my whole point being wrong, but later
>> **you yourself sent a follow up email to correct your own statement**. I
>> acknowledged my mistake on the spot. Surely, we can agree all of us make
>> mistakes. **In no way or form was I telling bald faced lies.**
>>> You really think this makes you TU material? Really?
>> Yes, I think the way I have handled the situation makes me trustworthy.
>> I care for the packages I maintain and the community enough to make sure
>> the packages are left in excellent shape and hands so people can depend
>> on them. I also have serious respect for the people here, community &
>> TUs - as I've said before, ArchLinux has been good to me I want to good
>> to it. This is why I made the fuss, because I care, but I also took
>> everyone's perspective in and kept a working discussion.
> I read this differently, you care so much that you don't trust anyone
> else to do it right. You're a control freak, and I don't want to have to
> deal with you on the team, no matter how capable you are as a programmer.
>
> Other TUs can make their own decisions of course.
>
You call me "passive aggressive" and a "whiny baby"... Everything I say
must be with some hidden malicious intent, right?

You have to defend yourself and I don't??

I'm sorry Eli, but I have told no lies about you. I and everyone here
has emails with dates and hours showing a sequence of events - I sent my
initial email at 9pm, you re-opening the bug at 3am UK. Everyone can
check that.

This is the last email I sent to you about this - thread is public anyway.




signature.asc (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

Jerome Leclanche-2
In reply to this post by tur-users mailing list
I don't understand all the animosity towards the guy in the previous few
emails. Is assuming good faith really that far-fetched here? And even if
it's not, why not be a little more professional about it?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

Konstantin Gizdov
In reply to this post by tur-users mailing list
On 26/10/2018 18:23, Doug Newgard via aur-general wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 17:29:31 +0100
> Konstantin Gizdov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 26/10/2018 15:27, Doug Newgard via aur-general wrote:
>>> I must point out this very recent mailing list thread:
>>> https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034279.html
>>>
>>> In this thread, you:
>>>
>>> 1) whine about someone taking over *your* packages, because you're the one that
>>> knows them and has cared for them and, after all, they're YOURS.  
>> I did no such thing. I opened the thread by thanking Felix for picking
>> them up and asked a few questions about the plans for the packages and
>> how to pass on what I know, because I was having trouble doing that over
>> the bug tracker. What ensued after (the responses) was not my doing. I
>> tried to respond to every and all comments respectfully and I think you
>> will find a through discussion was had and a lot of details were sorted.
>>
>> Part of that was revealing that the ROOT stack was being picked up -
>> yes, I care about it as it directly affects my profession and I've given
>> thorough reasons why. I **never claimed the packages were mine** - if
>> you talk about the usage of the word 'my', it clearly refers to me being
>> the maintainer. I said I've put work into them, continue to do so and
>> wanted to make sure I can pass that on in full. My TU application is me
>> trying to do that.
> You did thank Felix, but then went on to make your true intent extremely clear.
> You specifically ask why your packages were moved (there doesn't have to be a
> reason), and say things like:
>
> "The reason I'm asking is because over the years I've added and been
> maintaining some professional software and these packages are part of that
> chain. Colleagues in the field have become accustomed to me for packaging
> with care and updating with new features."
>
> The aforementioned thanks would appear to be perfunctory, like saying "No
> offense, but you're an idiot".
Nope, it's like - I wanna make sure the stuff works and want to ask some
questions.

>
> Reference:
> https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034279.html
>
>>> 2) whine about how things were handled on the bug tracker, thinking that this
>>> whining is how things get done. It's not.  
>> Again, I did no such thing. I explained what happened and asked how can
>> I do better. I was told I have to stick to the bug tracker. Thus, I said
>> why I think this approach is failing in that particular case and gave
>> exampes.
>>
>> By the way, it was only because of that email that one of the bugs was
>> reopened (by Eli) and fixed, otherwise it was ignored. Seems to me my
>> email worked fine.
> And this attitude right here is a major problem. One ticket was closed because
> it was very clearly not a bug. The second one that was closed was closed based
> on the information you gave, the reopen request contained different
> information. Based on that, I didn't deny the reopen request and decided to
> wait until I got home to try it. In the mean time, Eli took a look at the
> request and reopened it.
How do I know this? Also, I just sent an email with questions, you could
have replied - 'looking into it'. For example,

https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034281.html

> In the middle of all of that, and completely independently and unrelated, you
> sent your email to this list, but you still seem to be under the impression
> that it was a good thing and actually accomplished something. I can assure you,
> it accomplished nothing good.
OK. Good to know.

>>> 3) Tell bald faced lies about how things transpired on the bug tracker.  
>> I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. In the many emails I wrote that
>> evening, I got confused about one bug being closed, where it wasn't. You
>> tried to call me out for lying and my whole point being wrong, but later
>> **you yourself sent a follow up email to correct your own statement**. I
>> acknowledged my mistake on the spot. Surely, we can agree all of us make
>> mistakes. **In no way or form was I telling bald faced lies.**
> So you opened 3 tickets. Two were closed and *one* (1) was denied a reopen. Yet
> you claim "I tried to re-open all 3 bugs but was denied with little to no
> comment/explanation." There is too much disparity here to be a typo or a
> mistake.
>
> Reference:
> https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034286.html
The mistake was I tried to re-open all 3 instead of 2, which I
acknowledged on the spot. I just check in the bug tracker.

This is the last email about this to you too.



signature.asc (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

tur-users mailing list
In reply to this post by tur-users mailing list


‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Friday, October 26, 2018 8:23 PM, Doug Newgard via aur-general <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> You did thank Felix, but then went on to make your true intent extremely clear.
> You specifically ask why your packages were moved (there doesn't have to be a
> reason), and say things like:
>
> "The reason I'm asking is because over the years I've added and been
> maintaining some professional software and these packages are part of that
> chain. Colleagues in the field have become accustomed to me for packaging
> with care and updating with new features."
>
> The aforementioned thanks would appear to be perfunctory, like saying "No
> offense, but you're an idiot".
>
> Reference:
> https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034279.html
>

I see no such attitude. After reading this and previous thread the quote above expresses what happened quite neutrally: AUR package was used by group of people, after moving package to community, some things (important to that group) became broken - presumably because of some changes in community package. There is nothing wrong in telling that one person was maintaining package and his colleagues became accustomed to that package.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

tur-users mailing list
In reply to this post by Jerome Leclanche-2
On Fri, 2018-10-26 at 20:48 +0300, Jerome Leclanche wrote:
> I don't understand all the animosity towards the guy in the previous
> few emails.

There was a thread a while back that got a bit heated.

> Is assuming good faith really that far-fetched here? And even if it's
> not, why not be a little more professional about it?

Agreed.

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

tur-users mailing list
In reply to this post by tur-users mailing list
On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 18:09:50 +0000
Maksim Fomin via aur-general <[hidden email]> wrote:

> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Friday, October 26, 2018 8:23 PM, Doug Newgard via aur-general <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > You did thank Felix, but then went on to make your true intent extremely clear.
> > You specifically ask why your packages were moved (there doesn't have to be a
> > reason), and say things like:
> >
> > "The reason I'm asking is because over the years I've added and been
> > maintaining some professional software and these packages are part of that
> > chain. Colleagues in the field have become accustomed to me for packaging
> > with care and updating with new features."
> >
> > The aforementioned thanks would appear to be perfunctory, like saying "No
> > offense, but you're an idiot".
> >
> > Reference:
> > https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034279.html
> >  
>
> I see no such attitude. After reading this and previous thread the quote above expresses what happened quite neutrally: AUR package was used by group of people, after moving package to community, some things (important to that group) became broken - presumably because of some changes in community package. There is nothing wrong in telling that one person was maintaining package and his colleagues became accustomed to that package.

Except there was nothing wrong with the packages in Community, nothing had
broken.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

tur-users mailing list
In reply to this post by tur-users mailing list
On 10/26/18 2:09 PM, Maksim Fomin via aur-general wrote:
> I see no such attitude. After reading this and previous thread the
> quote above expresses what happened quite neutrally: AUR package was
> used by group of people, after moving package to community, some
> things (important to that group) became broken - presumably because
> of some changes in community package. There is nothing wrong in
> telling that one person was maintaining package and his colleagues
> became accustomed to that package.

The whole point is that there was nothing broken, at all.

One package had a FTBFS, but the built package worked flawlessly.

One package had some confusion about whether some optdepends in the AUR
were necessary, but the conclusion was ultimately that they're not.

One package had a bug report filed, asking for the python version to be
moved to community as well.

All three issues were initially brought to the bugtracker. All three
issues were correctly handled according to the standard process.

At no point whatsoever was any sort of aur-general discussion, necessary
to the bug resolution process.

I'd also like to reiterate that none of the involved binary packages
were in fact, at the end of the day broken in any way, shape, or form.
Only one of the three issues posed the possibility that a binary package
*might* be broken.

--
Eli Schwartz
Bug Wrangler and Trusted User


signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
1234