[MPlayer-dev-eng] Cleaning up incoming

[Uoti Urpala]

On Mon, 2009-12-21 at 11:16 +0100, Attila Kinali wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 17:07:02 +0200
> Uoti Urpala <uoti.urpala at pp1.inet.fi> wrote:
> > You're claiming it would "solve" the problems, but the only thing it'd
> > directly do is cause _much worse_ problems. Ability to upload new
> > samples is much higher priority than keeping years-old samples, so
> > endangering the former for the sake of the latter is a bad idea.
> 
> Erhmm.. haven't you been reading what i wrote? We are already at
> that stage. I limited the growth of the samples partition because

No we're not at a stage where ability to upload new samples would have
to be endangered; deletion of oldest files can be done quickly to ensure
it doesn't happen. Making the incoming partition smaller, making it more
likely to fill up before files are sorted or deleted and requiring the
deletion of newer files to keep it small enough, is not beneficial.

> nobody sorted any files. But that has issues with sorting in samples
> and Reimars proposal solves this issue while allowing me to keep
> a tab on how big incoming grows.

You're making a very big unjustified assumption when saying that
Reimar's proposal really "solves" anything. The only thing it directly
does it cause problems much worse than are caused by samples being
unsorted.


> > Second, even if it did make someone work on sorting samples, you'd
> > have to justify why this was a good thing. A sorted samples collection
> > would no doubt be beneficial, but is it _the_ most important thing that
> > someone could work on?
> 
> Uoti, when will you learn that this way of arguing is just plain wrong?

What exactly do you mean by "this way"? Based on what you write below I
think you're using a twisted strawman version.

> If i'd take that argument seriously, i would need work on the really
> important stuff and let natsuki rot until it becomes the most important
> thing... by which time, it'll be mostly unusable for anyome.
> No, really that doesnt work. I rather spend every week an hour to
> keep natsuki up and running instead of working on "important things".

You clearly don't understand what you're talking about. Is prioritizing
issues really such an alien concept to you that need to ridicule it, or
you seriously try to show it to be an unsound idea?

In volunteer projects people may work on things they find fun rather
than necessarily the most important things. However if you try to get
_others_ to do something then "is this really the most important thing
we could be working on?" is not only a fair question but something you
should have considered in advance and be prepared to answer.


> > Who'd in practice do the sorting, and would that
> > person be able to do something more important instead? 
> 
> We have volunteers who'd do that... if other people wouldnt
> stand in their way.

If there are enough volunteers to keep incoming small if only the
disagreements about how to sort samples are resolved then what
motivation would there be for partition size changes at all?

Or if opposition to limiting the partition size artificially is what
you're referring to as "standing in their way", then you're using a very
unreasonable definition of that term, plus are probably wrong about
there actually being enough volunteers (if that is what you think would
make them actually do the work).


> The gratest benefit to humankind would be to bring peace to everyone.
> Yet, you dont work on this. Why is this? Don't you see that it

See above about prioritizing issues. Also, specific to this particular
strawman, while bringing world peace could be a very good thing it's
also one that you're unlikely to actually achieve even if you try.


> > I don't consider the advantages of sorting
> > samples over just deleting the oldest ones to be significant enough to
> > make it a top priority thing to do. 
> 
> _You_ dont consider it. _Others_ do!
> Please learn that not everyone is thinking the same way you do.
> That not everyone has the same priorities.

_You_ are the one who wants to make others work more on the samples. So
_you_ are the one who should be able to justify that, especially if
"encouraging" it with methods likely to cause harm.

I haven't forbidden anyone from working on the samples. What I've
opposed are changes likely to cause new problems.

You could try to make your arguments more factual. Your response above
was essentially nothing but one ad hominem argument ("you don't
understand that people can have different priorities!"). You gave no
justification why your opinion differs. No reason why sorting samples is
likely to be very beneficial in the long run. No reason why deleting
oldest samples would cause major harm. You're the one who wants the
samples to be sorted, and who wants to make changes for it that could
cause other harm. Shouldn't you be prepared to argue your case for that
beyond "it's my opinion"?


> > And even if more work on organizing
> > the samples would be beneficial, endangering the ability to upload new
> > samples for that is a case of the cure being worse than the disease.
> 
> That's your opinion.

You seem to think that saying "That's your opinion." in an argument is
enough to prove that whatever you're responding to is no more valid than
any contrary claim and can be ignored. It doesn't work that way. If you
want to do more than troll then try to put more content into your
arguments.


It's certain that incoming filling up as a result of being made smaller
would be very harmful. Any possible benefits are a lot more uncertain.
Yet you seem to think that there's no need to actually justify changes,
that "it's my opinion" is enough. Overall your post gives the impression
that you're more concerned with complaining about how unfair it is that
someone disagrees with your plans than with trying to make a case that
the plans would indeed have a beneficial result.