RyverStyx Posted May 26, 2022 Posted May 26, 2022 BYOND Key: RyverStyx Staff BYOND Key: wowzewow Game ID: N/A Reason for complaint: Utilizing the change request feature on GitHub to stop PRs that they personally do not like and refusing to re-review or offer more input when asked. Also copying an existing PR that he requested changes on into his own while not approving the former change request. Evidence/logs/etc: https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/13990 (Unresolved) https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/13977 (Resolved but same behavior) https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/14041 (PR with copied work from previous mentioned PR) Additional remarks: I’ve tried to contact Wezzy multiple times (Staff Dev Channel, Code Channel in general aurora discord, and on the PR itself) regarding this but have been ignored every time.
Arrow768 Posted May 26, 2022 Posted May 26, 2022 I´ll handle that complaint. Regarding "blocking" PRs using requested changes and refusing re-reviews: Any developer can dismiss requested changes if the changes have been addressed. Any maintainer can dismiss requested changes for any reason. Developers / Contributors are not under any obligation to provide a re-review in a specific timeframe. If the previous review has been addressed it can be dismissed (for developers) / ignored (for contributors) Regarding copying content from a existing PR: Please explain what the problem there is.
RyverStyx Posted May 26, 2022 Author Posted May 26, 2022 1 hour ago, Arrow768 said: I´ll handle that complaint. Regarding "blocking" PRs using requested changes and refusing re-reviews: Any developer can dismiss requested changes if the changes have been addressed. Any maintainer can dismiss requested changes for any reason. Developers / Contributors are not under any obligation to provide a re-review in a specific timeframe. If the previous review has been addressed it can be dismissed (for developers) / ignored (for contributors) Regarding copying content from a existing PR: Please explain what the problem there is. I’m aware of how change requests are supposed to work but Wezzy is not using them in good faith. After both Wildkins and Matt asked him to clarify and re-review nothing was done for a long period of time. All that needed done was for him to actually explain what he meant (which multiple people asked repeatedly with no answer). The change request tag is just being used to stonewall the PR. Regarding the copying of the PR. Why would he request changes on Vrow’s PR and then add the whole PR (unchanged) into his own PR? That shows that the change request tag was not genuine as he did not actually require changes. It was used to try and block out Vrow’s PR. Just very odd usage of the tag not being used to genuinely request changes.
VisVirific Posted May 26, 2022 Posted May 26, 2022 24 minutes ago, Arrow768 said: Regarding copying content from a existing PR: Please explain what the problem there is. Hello, Arrow. I'm one of the co-creators of the PR Wezzy copied and I can also explain the problem about it. As I summarized the entire sequence of events leading up to that, the entire situation surrounding it was fishy at best with what I can say standard and unfortunately expected behavior from Wezzy at this point. What wasn't expected is the fact he would allegedly copy an already existing PR that re-adds the items he took out without any mention without asking or even talking to either Memescopes or I, when I had directly linked my PR (which he was the one who requested changes for and added the Changes Requested tag) asking what it'd mean for his new uniform PR. When this was brought up in the main discord server, Wezzy's response to Wildkins reaction was that it was done to "avoid a conflict merge if it got merged", although that isn't really true. PRs that mess with icons get merge conflicts all the time. Suddenly wanting to avoid the conflict merge would be good, but in the end not feasible UNLESS you directly collaborate with the other PR that will likely cause the conflict. Especially considering his new PR overwrites some of my PR's fixes (example: from pathing of the EPMC uniforms from pmc/epmc since the EPMC is part of the PMCG, hence being a child path of the PMCG items, to surplus/epmc for some reason?) and re-added icons. And the sections that were copied from my PR will end up causing conflicts in his PR (example: his First Responder uniform icon and item states call for the "epmc_emt", while his overwriting uniform is named "epmc_ft"). Or even the added fact that he straight up copied parts of the Changelog too so it's. Like this: So in the end, the fact that he copied my PR actually caused more conflicts to his PR. And as Ryver pointed out, why would he request changes, only to copy the PR in a way that creates more bugs into his own PR, while simultaneously not addressing any of the people arguing against the requested changes? It feels incredibly underhanded, even more so that he didn't even try to contact either Memescopes or I before doing this, and seemingly doing it after I directly linked the PR back in the forum thread someone else had to create about the whole uniform situation. Which I also find strange since he can, in fact, contact people about things like he originally contacted me about the Chem Bottles, Beakers and Medcup Resprites. In fact, he had contacted me within the hour of me putting the PR up. He had feedback, I addressed it quickly, and then... nothing at all. No approval, no mention of what else was wrong. Nothing until I began to ask other people about it and someone else had to tell him to check it again. And even after I re-addressed the sudden additional feedback, there was no response. But I do know he was fully aware of it considering this vague remark that only applies to the Chem Bottles, Beakers and Medcup Resprites.
Arrow768 Posted May 28, 2022 Posted May 28, 2022 On 26/05/2022 at 22:46, RyverStyx said: I´m aware of how change requests are supposed to work but Wezzy is not using them in good faith. After both Wildkins and Matt asked him to clarify and re-review nothing was done for a long period of time. All that needed done was for him to actually explain what he meant (which multiple people asked repeatedly with no answer). The change request tag is just being used to stonewall the PR. I disagree with the notion that the changes requested tag has been used to stone-wall your PR specifically. Even if the changes required tag by weezy would not exist, it would not be merged as it is currently lacking the second approving review. Once the second approving review by a developer has been provided, and the changes required tag is still in place you have the option to inquire with the maintainers about the status of the PR. The maintainers can then decide if they want to dismiss the review requesting changes by weezy (or inquire with weezy to clarify the required changes). There is currently no specified timeframe during which a re-review has to be issued. There is also no requirement that a re-review has to be a approving review. A re-review by a developer can result in them dismissing their old review or requesting further changes. There are mechanisms in place to dismiss stale reviews. (Which has been used in case of PR #13977) In addition I want to point out, that we do not have a "guaranteed merge time". The timeframes we have set up (in this case: 3 days for non-bugfix-prs) are minimum waiting times. With all that said, I do not see how weezy is preventing your PR from being merged (stone-walling), as the conditions for being merged are not achieved at this time if the review by weezy wouldnt exist. (The review by weezy is also not preventing other developers from reviewing your PR). On 26/05/2022 at 23:50, VisVirific said: So in the end, the fact that he copied my PR actually caused more conflicts to his PR. And as Ryver pointed out, why would he request changes, only to copy the PR in a way that creates more bugs into his own PR, while simultaneously not addressing any of the people arguing against the requested changes? It feels incredibly underhanded, even more so that he didn't even try to contact either Memescopes or I before doing this, and seemingly doing it after I directly linked the PR back in the forum thread someone else had to create about the whole uniform situation. After a larger PR has been merged, we generally prefer if the person who made the initial PR also makes the follow-up tweaks to it. (This preference is also something that caused the creation of the revert policy.) The communication by weezy regarding your PR in question was not ideal as imho the transfer of the changes to the other PR and the reason for it should have been mentioned on the relevant PRs and not just on discord/the forums. However the reason for integrating your PR (wanting to avoid merge conflicts) is a valid reason and had a high change of being successful if the initial review would have been positive. (Especially if coordinated with the maintainers). New additions to the codebase are generally licensed under the AGPL or CC BY-SA. The AGPL / CC BY-SA does not require someone who copies/modifies the code to contact the original author (as long as they comply with the license requirements). I agree that it would have been better to communicate the reason directly on discord, but at the end of the day that would have been a courtesy and is not required. I also want to point out that the mechanism of dismissing stale reviews has worked on your PR (as weezys review has been dismissed and the PR merged after it has received two approving reviews). Generally if you have an issue with the way something on GitHub is handled (no reviews for a long time, stale review, ...) you can contact the maintainers. (The maintainers are basically the mods on our public repositories). This also goes for @RyverStyx With all that said, I will talk with weezy about his communication on GitHub.
VisVirific Posted May 28, 2022 Posted May 28, 2022 58 minutes ago, Arrow768 said: I also want to point out that the mechanism of dismissing stale reviews has worked on your PR (as weezys review has been dismissed and the PR merged after it has received two approving reviews). I'd like to point out the dismissal of Wezzy's review happened primarily because Memescope was able to directly talk to Wezzy about it in the code_dungeon text channel in the main discord, outlining that lore team members were giving the approval for it. Only after Wildkins removed the changes required was when Matt dismissed the stale review and marked it as resolved in the discord. Overall, I was unaware of what Developers can/can't do and what is/isn't an actual expectation from them, and therefore assumed Wezzy's behavior to have been in some shape or form a violation of protocol or standards when it comes to interacting with other contributors and-or their PRs (be them in reviews and not being obligated to re-review in under any time frame, or even less approve the PR even if said review is addressed in the first place), or even how a Developer is allowed to handle their own PR in contrast to other PRs. I'll absolutely keep in mind about contacting the Maintainers should anything else come up in the future. Thank you for your time, and for clarifying it.
RyverStyx Posted May 29, 2022 Author Posted May 29, 2022 (edited) 19 hours ago, Arrow768 said: I disagree with the notion that the changes requested tag has been used to stone-wall your PR specifically. Even if the changes required tag by weezy would not exist, it would not be merged as it is currently lacking the second approving review. I doubt that another dev would want to “overrule” Wezzy’s change request here. Wildkins did it but they have been the only one that I’ve seen to ever do that to Wezzy. The fact that a simple sprite swap PR has been up for over a week is evidence that the change request is at least hindering it in some way. 19 hours ago, Arrow768 said: Generally if you have an issue with the way something on GitHub is handled (no reviews for a long time, stale review, ...) you can contact the maintainers. (The maintainers are basically the mods on our public repositories). This also goes for @RyverStyx Matt already asked them to clarify and they never did. Forgive me if I’m being blunt here but it’s quite obvious what’s going on. Just because “technically they can do that so it’s okay” doesn’t mean they should do it; especially since you mentioned yourself that it’s not ideal. I would think that all behavior staff do should be held to the same standard of at least “ideal”. 19 hours ago, Arrow768 said: There is currently no specified timeframe during which a re-review has to be issued. There is also no requirement that a re-review has to be a approving review. A re-review by a developer can result in them dismissing their old review or requesting further changes. There should be a standard time for a re-review then; otherwise we run into this whole mess. Especially because I’ve tried to talk to Wezzy multiple times, and they’ve been active, to which they’ve ignored. Even if it was requesting further changes at least I’d know what he actually meant by his first request. Edited May 29, 2022 by RyverStyx Fixing spelling
Arrow768 Posted May 30, 2022 Posted May 30, 2022 On 29/05/2022 at 17:01, RyverStyx said: I doubt that another dev would want to “overrule” Wezzy’s change request here. Wildkins did it but they have been the only one that I’ve seen to ever do that to Wezzy. The fact that a simple sprite swap PR has been up for over a week is evidence that the change request is at least hindering it in some way. Creating a review that differs from a review that someone else has already given, has nothing to do with "overruling", as it is not dismissing the existing review. It is only a different opinion on the mergeability of a PR (As devs can only dismiss reviews that have been addressed / are no longer relevant). On 29/05/2022 at 17:01, RyverStyx said: Matt already asked them to clarify and they never did. Forgive me if I’m being blunt here but it’s quite obvious what’s going on. Just because “technically they can do that so it’s okay” doesn’t mean they should do it; especially since you mentioned yourself that it’s not ideal. I would think that all behavior staff do should be held to the same standard of at least “ideal”. If Matt asked them to clarify and they did not, then Matt (as a maintainer) has the option to dismiss their review. At the end of the day everyone here is a volunteer. If someone does not find the time (or forgets) to update a review, I do not have a major issue with it, as we have a process in place to handle out of date / invalid change requests. On 29/05/2022 at 17:01, RyverStyx said: There should be a standard time for a re-review then; otherwise we run into this whole mess. Especially because I’ve tried to talk to Wezzy multiple times, and they’ve been active, to which they’ve ignored. Even if it was requesting further changes at least I’d know what he actually meant by his first request. I am against imposing a enforced timeframe on reviews or re-reviews, as that will lead to a lowered code quality in the long run (as people will be obligated to "press though" a re-review. We have a process in place to handle out of date / invalid reviews. Use that process. I plan to create a formal document which details the different responsibilities of people that interact with our repository / update the contributor guide to include that. This might take a while depending on my free time. As I have already mentioned I have talked with weezy about his communication on GitHub, but also want to point out again that if there are issues on github to contact the maintainers. Unless there is something that has not been mentioned so far, I consider this issue resolved and will close the complaint within 24h.
VisVirific Posted May 31, 2022 Posted May 31, 2022 Hello. Sorry for posting this right on time as I was suddenly busy and couldn't do it sooner, but considering what you've said about the document depending on your free time, I'd just like to see if I can summarize the known Developer responsibilities until said document is public. In the end, Developers can: Request Changes to any PR that is of their interest Never need to re-review said PR even after the requested changes are addressed in under any time frame at all Never need to approve said PR which they requested changes for While Contributors: Cannot ignore the Request Changes Must either discuss against the requested changes or follow them through (with compromises or not) Still never expect the approval of the Developer who originally requested the changes Are to contact the Maintainers for any github issues Is that all correct?
Arrow768 Posted May 31, 2022 Posted May 31, 2022 3 hours ago, VisVirific said: Is that all correct? No it is not correct. The different roles/responsibilities will be explained in the upcoming document. Until that’s finished the important takeaway is to contact the maintainers if you have an issue with something on GitHub. (That goes for anyone who interacts with our public repo) Given that no additional points about weezys conduct have been raised (which this staff complaint is about) I will close this staff complaint.
Recommended Posts