[pulseaudio-tickets] [PulseAudio] #606: [PATCH] pulseaudio systemwide is a pain

[PulseAudio]

#606: [PATCH] pulseaudio systemwide is a pain
---------------------+------------------------------------------------------
  Reporter:  Rudd-O  |       Owner:  lennart
      Type:  defect  |      Status:  new    
 Milestone:          |   Component:  clients
Resolution:          |    Keywords:         
---------------------+------------------------------------------------------

Comment(by coling):

 Rudd-O, I don't want to stir up more problems, but if you take a detached
 read of this thread, you'll see that it started quite amicably with myself
 trying to offer advice and constructive feedback which you then decided to
 ignore and then ridicule me with an exceptionally arrogant and
 condescending reply. I tried my best to explain things to you clearly but
 again you replied with in an arrogant and condescending and, at times,
 down right rude reply.

 Lennart was also very polite in explaining why he would not accept the
 patch. This is a perfectly reasonable decision for a project maintainer to
 take and in actual fact it's their  JOB. If you've followed any open
 source development, you'll know this is a critical stance to take. Only
 with your bad tempered replies did any form of venom, annoyance or
 rudeness creep in.

 If you want to be involved in open source projects, you sometimes have to
 rework your original patches. I've done that countless times on this
 particular project and on many others. That's how it works. You can't take
 it as a personal insult.

 Now projects like pulseaudio always appreciate any extra help, but
 attitudes need to be left at the door. I hope you do want to work more on
 pulse and help make it better but you really need to learn how to
 collaborate properly. This whole thread, particularly the way you treated
 and interacted with me, shows precisely how not to interact with people.
 You have to listen to people who know more about the project than you do
 when they give you advice and guidance, not flame them or ridicule them.
 Read carefully the replies and do not jump to your own conclusions. Case
 in point: even with your revised patch it's clear you didn't actually
 appreciate what I said which related to '''which''' client.conf to parse,
 not whether or not to skip the check completely if the user has a
 client.conf.

 That latter point is now moot anyway as Lennart, who has ultimate say,
 doesn't think this check is worth doing, which is his prerogative. As I
 said above, it's not really that important IMO if we start a server that
 ultimately remains unused (as client.conf has higher priority than x11
 settings set during the server startup, avoiding said startup due to
 client.conf settings will not matter in the long run).

 I hope you take a long, hard and detached view of this thread and how
 you've phrased your replies. I hope that you will learn that writing
 arrogant and condescending comments will not win favour nor make you any
 friends and that this experience will be a catalyst to you behaving
 differently when working in community projects in the future.

 I genuinely wish you all the best and hope you do not take this as a
 personal insult - it's certainly not intended that way.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://pulseaudio.org/ticket/606#comment:37>
PulseAudio <http://pulseaudio.org/>
The PulseAudio Sound Server