[Bug 1896] libX11 support for pt_BR

[Daniel Stone]

On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 20:46 +0100, Felix Schulte wrote:
> Daniel, could you please stop acting like a troll?
> The approval process for the new release is very clear:
> 1. You make a patch

Every single one of these bugs had patches attached, so this is already
fulfilled.

> 2. You get it reviewed on demand
> 3. You commit it to HEAD
> 4. You request approval for the release branch

I was acting under the mistaken assumption (based on my understanding of
how things worked from following the trail of a few bugs), that bugs
could be filed, and patches could have 6.8.x approval requested for
them, and be committed to HEAD and 6.8.x roughly simultaneously.  It was
also used to signify that many of these bugs are actually quite
important, and that getting them into 6.8.x would be fantastic.

> That is the order in which things should happen. Everyone has
> understood that. Except Daniel Stone. But Daniel Stone does not care
> since Daniel Stone is a law under himself and does not have to follow
> any guidelines everyone else is honoring.

I misunderstood the process, with absolutely no malicious intent.  I am
now awaiting Roland's word on how we can move forward on merging these
patches, to everyone's benefit.  I don't believe I've demonstrated any
malice thus far, and I'm sorry if it seemed that way, but it's simply
incorrect.  The way I was working was apparently quite damaging, so I
have stopped working through Bugzilla until I get word as to how best to
do it (possibly through the proposed flags?), while keeping everyone
happy.

I am aware that I have appeared to gatecrash the release process -- real
life has kept me busy up until a certain point, and I apologised, and
asked for (and was granted) an extension of time in which to propose
patches.  Unfortunately an unexpected event cropped up which kept me
busy all of last week, so I was only able to start effectively filing
and proposing some of the 50,000 lines of patches we currently have
(many of which fix very serious bugs) yesterday.  It turns out this has
apparently damaged the release process, so I've sought advice on how to
remedy this in the immediate term, and how to proceed and act as a good
citizen in the slightly longer term.

I don't have malice.  I have mistakes, and I've offered apologies.
While using my full name repeatedly is a good way to dehumanise me, I am
actually a person (currently sitting on a couch in a flat in London,
battling oncoming sleep due to the immense heat in this place), who
makes mistakes; doubly so under pressure -- this time under self-induced
pressure to get the bugs in in enough time for proper review.  I made a
mistake (or thirty, if you go by number of attachments), and when I was
made aware of this, I apologised for it.  Daniel Stone isn't perfect,
nor does he think he is.  He's just attempting to get some rather
important patches in for 6.8.2.

-d