Contributions which I feel are dangerous and/or deceptive (Was: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jun 2021, #06; Thu, 17))

[Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>]

Hi,

I hate doing this, but...

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 7:58 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

> * fc/pull-cleanups (2021-06-15) 3 commits
>  - pull: trivial whitespace style fix
>  - pull: trivial cleanup
>  - pull: cleanup autostash check
>
>  Code cleanup.
>
>  Will merge to 'next'.

Please don't.

Let me quote from four recent emails, three of which will look
unrelated at first, and then I'll tie it together:

From https://lore.kernel.org/git/CABPp-BGrKjpjb5epv1nXcvn4Z1OHP4Uf6G1f9FARmwUcFVa96Q@mail.gmail.com/
:
(a quote of mine to Felipe)
"""
You clearly have talent.
With regards to the zdiff3 patches, I've stated above why I think you
haven't done your due diligence.  Sometimes people make mistakes;
that's something that can be corrected.  What I find egregious here is
that even when Peff and I have pointed out how more due diligence is
expected and needed, you've dug in to explain why you think your
course of action was reasonable (both here and in
https://lore.kernel.org/git/60c82a622ae66_e5292087f@natae.notmuch/).
That in my mind raises your submissions from careless to glaringly
cavalier.  Further, it makes me suspect we may continue to see you
repeat such behavior.  That worries me.
"""

From https://lore.kernel.org/git/CABPp-BEXtJtkkh9Diuo4e1K1ci=vggGxkLRDfkpOH12LM8TCfA@mail.gmail.com/
:
(another quote of mine to Felipe)
"""
...you
are willing to eschew what I view as even the most basic of
responsibilities in ensuring you are submitting valid patches, and
even worse, you are unwilling to change how you approach the project
even when those are pointed out to you.
"""

From https://lore.kernel.org/git/YMhx2BFlwUxZ2aFJ@coredump.intra.peff.net/ :
(a quote from Peff to Felipe)
"""
But much more important, in my opinion: that you would dismiss without
further investigation a report of a bug from the one person who actually
had experience running with the patch implies a level of carelessness
that I'm not comfortable with for the project.

I had already given up on having substantive discussion with you, but I
had hoped I could help the project by pointing out relevant facts in
areas that you were working in. But if a simple statement like "this
segfaulted for me" is not even useful, then I don't see much point in
communicating with you at all.
"""

From https://lore.kernel.org/git/60c887f678c88_e63320846@natae.notmuch/ :
(a quote from Felipe responding to me)
"""
> * `Reviewed-by:`, unlike the other tags, can only be offered by the
>   reviewer and means that she is completely satisfied that the patch
>   is ready for application.  It is usually offered only after a
>   detailed review.

Yeah, I read that after I sent v3. In this series I simply cherry-picked
it from a previous series.
"""

The first three quotes highlight what I feel is a reckless submission
from Felipe; from the threads you can read in the linked messages, I
believe he sees no problems in his approach and appears intent to
continue that course in the future.

But the fourth raises the alarm levels for me further.  In the fourth
quote, Felipe admits to having learned what "Reviewed-by" meant, then
cherry-picked a patch of his own with an inappropriate Reviewed-by and
resubmitted it anyway.  And he did not resubmit the series with the
error corrected when it was raised to his attention.  That feels
deceptive to me.

If I were in charge, at this point I would drop all of Felipe's
patches on the floor (not just the ones from these threads), and not
accept any further ones.  I am not in charge, though, and you have
more patience than me.  But I will not be reviewing or responding to
Felipe's patches further.  Please do not trust future submissions from
him that have an "Acked-by" or "Reviewed-by" from me, including
resubmissions of past patches.

I will allow Felipe to have the last word if he so chooses; I won't
respond further.