4 ms·

In this particular case I notice he not only rejected the pull request, but then (after having the issue explained to him) [re-submitted](https://github.com/joy

In this particular case I notice he not only rejected the pull request, but then (after having the issue explained to him) [re-submitted](https://github.com/joyent/libuv/commit/804d40ee14dc0f82c482dcc8d1c41c14333fcb48 https://github.com/joyent/libuv/commit/804d40ee14dc0f82c482d...) the change to revert. That's where he (potentially) stepped over the line. If he were in the office it would at the very least precipitate a serious discussion. It's the refusal to acknowledge the feedback or policy which really screams out "asshole". Again, I would need to have a relationship with him to be sure of it, but the OP did have that relationship. Assuming this wasn't the first issue, it would be even more inappropriate for him to go blabbing about that history on a random pull request, don't you think? That would just be character assassination.

waterlion 13y ago
As others have said, this might still have been the result of confusion. bnoordhuis clearly didn't realise that bert had signed off on the change already. There are apparently other issues, such as people making minor changes and sneaking into the contributor list, which maintainers have to deal with day to day. I don't know much of this, but it's detailed in other posts. I think this isn't clear cut. Certainly not clear enough cut for all this uproar.
- heterogenic 13y ago
  Since he's just a contributor, and has not been fired (nor could he be), in this case OP is describing a hypothetical situation in which someone in his office might exhibit similar behaviour and how that would be handled. The situations are different enough that I consider his post one which uses the opportunity to make a hypothetical point rather than one which describes a real situation. (For instance, in an office setting a first step would be to talk to the person in question. The second step would be to consider their holistic reputation in the office. Etc.)
  - waterlion 13y ago
    I went back and read the article. Weasel words. Yes it's hypothetical situation but he is explicitly linking Ben and this hypothetical situation. He didn't have to use Ben's name and the word 'asshole' in adjacent sentences. It looks pretty deliberate to me. I think a lot of people (Bryan, commenters in this thread, and the people abusing and bullying noorhuis on twitter) got hot under the collar and are retroactively trying to rationalise and explain their behaviour rather than apologising and saying "sorry we got caught up in the lynch mob". I've not seen a single answer to the question of "why are you ignoring the fact that he was following the procedure had no option". Anyway, this has been talked to death. I'm interested in this because I empathise with the injustice of it, can't stand a witchhunt, and don't think that bullying should happen, in any of its forms. Everyone's drawn a slightly different conclusion about the people involved, we can all learn something about humanity and move on.
gizmo686 13y ago
To anyone who hasn't followed the link to the reversal, this seems to be a case of a normal power struggle: "@isaacs may have his commit bit but that does not mean he is at liberty to land patches at will. All patches have to be signed off by either me or Bert. Isaac, consider yourself chided."

waterlion 13y ago

As others have said, this might still have been the result of confusion. bnoordhuis clearly didn't realise that bert had signed off on the change already. There are apparently other issues, such as people making minor changes and sneaking into the contributor list, which maintainers have to deal with day to day. I don't know much of this, but it's detailed in other posts. I think this isn't clear cut. Certainly not clear enough cut for all this uproar.

heterogenic 13y ago
Since he's just a contributor, and has not been fired (nor could he be), in this case OP is describing a hypothetical situation in which someone in his office might exhibit similar behaviour and how that would be handled. The situations are different enough that I consider his post one which uses the opportunity to make a hypothetical point rather than one which describes a real situation. (For instance, in an office setting a first step would be to talk to the person in question. The second step would be to consider their holistic reputation in the office. Etc.)
- waterlion 13y ago
  I went back and read the article. Weasel words. Yes it's hypothetical situation but he is explicitly linking Ben and this hypothetical situation. He didn't have to use Ben's name and the word 'asshole' in adjacent sentences. It looks pretty deliberate to me. I think a lot of people (Bryan, commenters in this thread, and the people abusing and bullying noorhuis on twitter) got hot under the collar and are retroactively trying to rationalise and explain their behaviour rather than apologising and saying "sorry we got caught up in the lynch mob". I've not seen a single answer to the question of "why are you ignoring the fact that he was following the procedure had no option". Anyway, this has been talked to death. I'm interested in this because I empathise with the injustice of it, can't stand a witchhunt, and don't think that bullying should happen, in any of its forms. Everyone's drawn a slightly different conclusion about the people involved, we can all learn something about humanity and move on.

gizmo686 13y ago

To anyone who hasn't followed the link to the reversal, this seems to be a case of a normal power struggle: "@isaacs may have his commit bit but that does not mean he is at liberty to land patches at will. All patches have to be signed off by either me or Bert. Isaac, consider yourself chided."