phpicalendar-devel

[PHPiCalendar-DEV] can someone help me understand bug 1417012?

[Jo R. <jr...@sv...>]

This is regarding bug 1417012.

There are several references in the code to publish.php, which doesn't exist
in the current distribution.

Chad closed the bug immediately saying he doesn't support documentation.  I
realized I wasn't being clear, and reopened it explaining that it was
references in the code itself.  Chad's final note on this is:

  Please stop harrassing me, I've closed this twice. If you persist I will 
  lodge a complaint with sourceforge. This is not going to be fixed.

What exactly about pointing out problems in the code is harrassing?  These
problems do exist.  If there is a reason for it to be this way (I suggested
several possible explanations) then why not take a quick moment to explain 
why it is this way?

I'd really hate to start off my relationship with this project on such an 
argumentative approach.  Frankly, I'm confused by this sort of behavior.

I like phpicalendar, and I'm working on a number of patches to improve it
(including several that are in your feature request list)  But if bug
reports are going to be slammed down with threats of harrassment, without
even acknowledging or responding to the issue ... that's pretty difficult
to work with.

In looking through the bugs, I've noted that Chad tends to aggressively
close out bugs even when people have documented that the issue isn't fixed.
So it apparently isn't just me that is observing this behavior.

-- 
Jo Rhett
senior geek
SVcolo : Silicon Valley Colocation

Re: [PHPiCalendar-DEV] can someone help me understand bug 1417012?

[Chad L. <ch...@ch...>]

I did respond, and responded with a "Won't Fix". Thats my perogative  
as admin to not fix an issue if I so deem. I have no issues with  
other bugs you've submitted. We don't take bugs on publish.php or  
whatever its named. They are provided as is. Why is this of such  
importance you continue to waste my time with.

I'm officially done with PHP iCalendar at this point. Jim, Ive made  
you admin and I'm removing myself from all of Sourceforge. If anyone  
wants the website let me know, it's going down tonight too.

-C


On Jan 31, 2006, at 12:13 PM, Jo Rhett wrote:

> This is regarding bug 1417012.
>
> There are several references in the code to publish.php, which  
> doesn't exist
> in the current distribution.
>
> Chad closed the bug immediately saying he doesn't support  
> documentation.  I
> realized I wasn't being clear, and reopened it explaining that it was
> references in the code itself.  Chad's final note on this is:
>
>   Please stop harrassing me, I've closed this twice. If you persist  
> I will
>   lodge a complaint with sourceforge. This is not going to be fixed.
>
> What exactly about pointing out problems in the code is  
> harrassing?  These
> problems do exist.  If there is a reason for it to be this way (I  
> suggested
> several possible explanations) then why not take a quick moment to  
> explain
> why it is this way?
>
> I'd really hate to start off my relationship with this project on  
> such an
> argumentative approach.  Frankly, I'm confused by this sort of  
> behavior.
>
> I like phpicalendar, and I'm working on a number of patches to  
> improve it
> (including several that are in your feature request list)  But if bug
> reports are going to be slammed down with threats of harrassment,  
> without
> even acknowledging or responding to the issue ... that's pretty  
> difficult
> to work with.
>
> In looking through the bugs, I've noted that Chad tends to  
> aggressively
> close out bugs even when people have documented that the issue  
> isn't fixed.
> So it apparently isn't just me that is observing this behavior.
>
> -- 
> Jo Rhett
> senior geek
> SVcolo : Silicon Valley Colocation
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through  
> log files
> for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
> searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD  
> SPLUNK!
> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? 
> cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642
> _______________________________________________
> Phpicalendar-devel mailing list
> Php...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/phpicalendar-devel

Re: [PHPiCalendar-DEV] can someone help me understand bug 1417012?

[Jo R. <jr...@sv...>]

On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 12:35:59PM -0800, Chad Little wrote:
> I did respond, and responded with a "Won't Fix". Thats my perogative  
> as admin to not fix an issue if I so deem. I have no issues with  
> other bugs you've submitted. We don't take bugs on publish.php or  
> whatever its named. They are provided as is. Why is this of such  
> importance you continue to waste my time with.
 
I was unaware that they were unsupported.  I saw nothing to indicate this
to me.  It appeared that you was closing it because you thought it was a
documentation issue.

-- 
Jo Rhett
senior geek
SVcolo : Silicon Valley Colocation

Re: [PHPiCalendar-DEV] can someone help me understand bug 1417012?

[Jim Hu <ji...@ta...>]

 From what I can tell, there is one reference to publish.php in  
comments in the main code; this is a vestige from before publish.php  
split into the ical and mozilla specific scripts.  So while it should  
probably be fixed, it's not clear to me that it counts as a bug.  It  
has no effect on the functionality, but it does direct the reader to  
a nonexistent file.

I think Chad is saying is that the main phpicalendar project does not  
support the publish.ical.php or publish.mozilla.php scripts.  He says

" we do not take bugs in the pulbish system, including documentation"

These were provided by others, and while they are important to those  
in the phpicalendar community who can't or won't use WebDAV, they are  
a pain for the developers since their behavior is very sensitive to  
server configurations.  If you look on the bbs, you'll see that we  
get a LOT of people with problems using these.

If I understand your request, you are also asking for changes in the  
_comments_ on line 52 of config.inc.php, which is supported by the  
project.  But your reopening looked like you are still asking for  
stuff related to publish.ical.php and publish.mozilla.php.  You might  
try clarifying what you said earlier instead of blaming Chad for  
being confused and asking him to reread something that wasn't clear.

The instances in the README accurately reflect the project history as  
far as I can tell.


=====================================
Jim Hu

On Jan 31, 2006, at 2:13 PM, Jo Rhett wrote:

> This is regarding bug 1417012.
>
> There are several references in the code to publish.php, which  
> doesn't exist
> in the current distribution.
>
> Chad closed the bug immediately saying he doesn't support  
> documentation.  I
> realized I wasn't being clear, and reopened it explaining that it was
> references in the code itself.  Chad's final note on this is:
>
>   Please stop harrassing me, I've closed this twice. If you persist  
> I will
>   lodge a complaint with sourceforge. This is not going to be fixed.
>
> What exactly about pointing out problems in the code is  
> harrassing?  These
> problems do exist.  If there is a reason for it to be this way (I  
> suggested
> several possible explanations) then why not take a quick moment to  
> explain
> why it is this way?
>
> I'd really hate to start off my relationship with this project on  
> such an
> argumentative approach.  Frankly, I'm confused by this sort of  
> behavior.
>
> I like phpicalendar, and I'm working on a number of patches to  
> improve it
> (including several that are in your feature request list)  But if bug
> reports are going to be slammed down with threats of harrassment,  
> without
> even acknowledging or responding to the issue ... that's pretty  
> difficult
> to work with.
>
> In looking through the bugs, I've noted that Chad tends to  
> aggressively
> close out bugs even when people have documented that the issue  
> isn't fixed.
> So it apparently isn't just me that is observing this behavior.
>
> -- 
> Jo Rhett
> senior geek
> SVcolo : Silicon Valley Colocation
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through  
> log files
> for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
> searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD  
> SPLUNK!
> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? 
> cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642
> _______________________________________________
> Phpicalendar-devel mailing list
> Php...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/phpicalendar-devel

Re: [PHPiCalendar-DEV] can someone help me understand bug 1417012?

[Jo R. <jr...@sv...>]

On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 02:48:20PM -0600, Jim Hu wrote:
> From what I can tell, there is one reference to publish.php in  
> comments in the main code; this is a vestige from before publish.php  
> split into the ical and mozilla specific scripts.  So while it should  
> probably be fixed, it's not clear to me that it counts as a bug.  It  
> has no effect on the functionality, but it does direct the reader to  
> a nonexistent file.
 
Which is an issue that should be fixed.  Minor, but relevant.  However,
part of what I was wondering was how/what the approach was for the 
publish.php scripts.  Is there a desire to re-integrate them?  Or should
the comments be updated?
(in short, before I spent time to write patches, who owns this and what are
they intending to do with it?)

> I think Chad is saying is that the main phpicalendar project does not  
> support the publish.ical.php or publish.mozilla.php scripts.  He says
> 
> " we do not take bugs in the pulbish system, including documentation"

I'm a coder. The "publish system" doesn't really mean anything to me. 
The "publish system" could mean the documentation on Sourceforge for 
all I know :-( If he had said that publish.ical.php and publish.mozilla.php
are provided as-is and not supported, then I would have understood.

> These were provided by others, and while they are important to those  
> in the phpicalendar community who can't or won't use WebDAV, they are  
> a pain for the developers since their behavior is very sensitive to  
> server configurations.  If you look on the bbs, you'll see that we  
> get a LOT of people with problems using these.

They are important to me, and I'm prepared to invest some time in improving
them to work better.  That's why I need to understand where they are going.

> If I understand your request, you are also asking for changes in the  
> _comments_ on line 52 of config.inc.php, which is supported by the  
> project.  But your reopening looked like you are still asking for  
> stuff related to publish.ical.php and publish.mozilla.php.  You might  
> try clarifying what you said earlier instead of blaming Chad for  
> being confused and asking him to reread something that wasn't clear.

I did try to clarify.  I was confused by Chad's absolute slam down on the
topic.  It wasn't like there was anything expressed to help me understand
what he was thinking about this, other than that I had annoyed him.

> The instances in the README accurately reflect the project history as  
> far as I can tell.
 
The only related lines I can find are:
  -Added iCal specific publish.php.
  -Mozilla calendar support added to publish.php.

There's nothing here to tell me that the publish stuff is unsupported, or
what the intent is for the future.

-- 
Jo Rhett
senior geek
SVcolo : Silicon Valley Colocation

Re: [PHPiCalendar-DEV] can someone help me understand bug 1417012?

[Nicolas C. <nic...@gm...>]

2006/1/31, Jo Rhett <jr...@sv...>:
>
> > I think Chad is saying is that the main phpicalendar project does not
> > support the publish.ical.php or publish.mozilla.php scripts.  He says
> >
> > " we do not take bugs in the pulbish system, including documentation"
>
> I'm a coder. The "publish system" doesn't really mean anything to me.
> The "publish system" could mean the documentation on Sourceforge for
> all I know :-( If he had said that publish.ical.php and
> publish.mozilla.php
> are provided as-is and not supported, then I would have understood.


I'm a coder too. And even if I'm not native english speaker, I've understoo=
d
Chad's sentence.
Your words seemed to intend that coders are stupid... That's not a good
point for you.

> These were provided by others, and while they are important to those
> > in the phpicalendar community who can't or won't use WebDAV, they are
> > a pain for the developers since their behavior is very sensitive to
> > server configurations.  If you look on the bbs, you'll see that we
> > get a LOT of people with problems using these.
>
> They are important to me, and I'm prepared to invest some time in
> improving
> them to work better.  That's why I need to understand where they are
> going.
>

All right, we're glad to welcome you in the dev team.
I'm sure, your help will be greatfull.
Would you mind to be the referent for publish*.php problems ?

Thanks,

Danon'.
Ps: I may have a hosting to maintain 'phpicalendar.net', if Chad really
doesn't want to. But it would be a shame for us that he quits.

Re: [PHPiCalendar-DEV] can someone help me understand bug 1417012?

[Jo R. <jr...@sv...>]

On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 10:17:04AM +0000, Nicolas Contamin wrote:
> I'm a coder too. And even if I'm not native english speaker, I've understood
> Chad's sentence. Your words seemed to intend that coders are stupid... 
> That's not a good point for you.

No, it means I tend to avoid amiguity.  I work with a lot of non-english
speakers and have found that these kind of assumptions can make problems
worse.  And I did grep for "publish system" in the source tree/docs before I
wrote that too, really ;-)
 
> All right, we're glad to welcome you in the dev team.
> I'm sure, your help will be greatfull.

Uh, maybe someone will be grateful but I doubt my code is great-full ;-)
(that is a wink giggle...)

> Would you mind to be the referent for publish*.php problems ?

I'm not sure what you mean by that.  Let me get my arms around them first.
If I rewrite them I'll be willing to take on bugs reported on them.  I
suspect that many "bugs" are lack of understanding of how to implement and
I'm already working on my new docs for them...

-- 
Jo Rhett
senior geek
SVcolo : Silicon Valley Colocation