Bitcoin Unlimited release_admin discussion between ftrader/thezerg 5-6 April 2018

20180405-06_release_admin_discussion.txt

BU release_admin discussion between ftrader/thezerg 5-6 April 2018 slack log
============================================================================

5 April 2018

freetrader [5:47 PM]
I am not pleased with distorted histories of events around the BUIP055 development being made.
@thezerg has made several false allegations on bitco.in citing a meeting that happened in this (private) channel and subsequently.
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-1164#post-61566 (edited)
We have a chance now to settle some basic parameters of this slack's etiquette.

freetrader [7:02 PM]
I've asked @thezerg whether he would be prepared to publish the full log of the development meeting in which he sprung this idea of doing the BUIP55 dev in a branch outside of BU's repo (edited)
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-1164#post-61575 (edited)
I would publish it in defense of an accurate historical record.
The only redaction I would make is to edit out [omitted]'s name in a comment I made, since I don't think we should reveal specific [omitted] parties in contact with BU/ABC at the time. (edited)

thezerg [7:08 PM]
so you disagree that you were made release manager for the BU bitcoin cash effort?

freetrader [7:08 PM]
yeah, absolutely.
Others have pointed out that this must have been a misunderstanding, but I was fairly clear about the scope of my responsibility, and confirmed it several times.
Does anyone else have any record of where I was "made release manager for the BU bitcoin cash effort"?
As I already wrote on the forum, I accepted responsibility to create a branch on my personal repo, where BU devs would submit PRs, review them (not on me exclusively) and when they reached a state where they could be merged back, I would submit a PR back to BU's main repo.

thezerg [7:22 PM]
I will try to get the back chat history.  But even if you are correct in your exact terminology, what part of the above does not make you a release manager?  If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

freetrader [7:25 PM]
the part where someone asks "would you accept acting as release manager", or uses any words like "handling the release", or "managing".
those words "release" and "manage" were never part of the conversation.

freetrader [7:32 PM]
  >  thezerg 3:49 PM                                                            
  > @freetrader, do you want to run a branch in your own repo with PRs and then issue a PR to BU when its ready?
That's from the meeting on 6 June 2017 in this channel.
Doing PRs to BU repo is what all devs do.
A release manager would be able to merge the readied PRs in BU's repo.

thezerg [7:38 PM]
Unfortunately I don't have back access right now because as an admin its trying to force me to pay for everybody.  But honestly, if you really justify your actions in that manner, you are living in an alternate reality.  If you had been extremely busy IRL and no work got done at all then ok I would just have found somebody else.  But to spend your available time working on another competing project, when you agreed to be the merge point for the BU project is egregious.You were asked in the above quote to merge other devs work, review it and then make a final PR to BU.  By implication your personal contributions would of course go into your own branch.  IIRC I told you that we had to do it this way because you are anonymous, so I had to give it a final once over. (edited)

thezerg [8:34 PM]
additionally, although I can't find the repo (did you delete it?) I remember that Amaury issued a PR to it for the sighash.  Later, when I tried to use it, I discovered that this PR was incomplete.  But you did not post a single comment on that PR...

freetrader [8:56 PM]
https://github.com/ftrader-bitcoinunlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/pull/4
sickpig pointed out that it was failing Travis due to a particular (probably related to the function) test not passing.
If something is not passing existing tests and the submitter does not mention that he needs assistance on fixing that, then I assume that the PR is still a work in progress.
Same goes for unaddressed review comments.
So the author of the PR (deadalnix) would normally go and look at what's causing the test to fail, especially after having helpfully pointed out which test is failing.
https://github.com/ftrader-bitcoinunlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/pull/6
^ this is what a review in progress looks like.



6 April 2018

freetrader [8:16 AM]
Here is the dev meeting slack log from 6 June 2017, the meeting in question.
https://gist.github.com/ftrader/d390270da87055538b06989c4c4e7c20
This is a secret gist for now, shared only here as a matter of record. (edited)

freetrader [8:32 AM]
  >  But to spend your available time working on another competing project, when you agreed to be the merge point for the BU project is egregious.
egregious: extremely bad in a way that is very noticeable
Why did you not point out to me that you found this extremely bad, when you were aware of my working together with deadalnix on June 6?
  >  If you had been extremely busy IRL
Big on assumptions of knowing how busy or not I was, aren't you.

thezerg [4:32 PM]
I said "if"
here are relevant quotes:

thezerg [4:39 PM]

  > thezerg 3:49 PM
  > @freetrader, do you want to run a branch in your own repo with PRs and then issue a PR to BU when its ready?

  > freetrader 3:50 PM
  > how would that work?

  > thezerg 3:51 PM
  > make a branch in your repo, people submit PRs to it.  you merge them.  then when its ready issue a PR that merges that branch into BU

  > freetrader 3:52 PM
  > is there an upside to this roundabout way instead of developing BUIP055 on the BU repo ?

  > thezerg 3:55 PM
  > the purpose is delegation

  > ptschip 3:57 PM
  > agree, i think it's a good idea, not ideal, but gets rid of a merging bottleneck and @thezerg can get focus on other things (edited)

  > thezerg 3:58 PM
  > @freetrader, you wrote a careful spec, do you want to shepard the process of implementation through?

  > freetrader 3:59 PM
  > The 'shepherding' requires a lot of decisions which are required from project lead.

  > freetrader 4:00 PM
  > @thezerg : as I wrote above, I'm willing to maintain a branch on my repo and feed PRs to BU
  > as long as this is a process others want to follow.

  > thezerg 5:28 PM
  > WRT BUIP055, I would like freetrader to create a working branch in his repo and review and pull in PRs in the normal fashion with my and other people's input
  > when BUIP055 is 90-100 percent done we merge to BU dev
  > we will not need such an exhaustive review at taht point since stuff has already been reviewed going into @freetrader's branch
  > yes this is not daily CI

  > freetrader 5:29 PM
  > This branch will run on Travis.

  > thezerg 5:29 PM
  > but daily CI means that I spend all day every day merging your stuff
  > this is a problem
  > additionally, much of this work will and should be isolated

  > freetrader 5:30 PM
  > why don't you delegate merge responsibility on BU ?

  > thezerg 5:31 PM
  > step by step @freetrader
  > esp since you value your anonymity, I can give a final merge a quick once over to ensure that some backdoor hasn't been injected```

I was clearly delegating project responsibility to you (I even wrote "the purpose is delegation") but on a provisional basis, with a final once over before the project gets merged into BU.  The last comment "step by step" even implies that you would get merge responsibility eventually... (edited)
ptschip clearly states the point which is for you to focus on this and me to focus on other things.
instead you seem to have focused on working on ABC, delaying BU significantly

freetrader [10:20 PM]
Not only you removed others' significant comments from those excerpts, but also significant comments of mine.
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-1166#post-61642 (edited)