[bug #65601] [troff] bogus 'bogus composite' errors introduced by commit 6008b6b7aa

[G. Branden Robinson]

Follow-up Comment #7, bug #65601 (group groff):

Hi Deri,

Long reply.  Feel free to take your time with it.  More on that very issue
below.

[comment #5 comment #5:]
> > It would help if you didn't assume autocratic motives behind my code
changes.
> 
> But I'm unsure how to achieve that.

I find this admission startling.  (More fool me, perhaps.)  One does this by
first having an internal dialogue wherein one weighs alternative explanations
for the observations one has made before committing a hypothesis to paper. 
(Or bits.) 

> By autocratic I am simply meaning that you seem to assume that your ideas
are automatically better than your inferiors.

What evidence do you have for this claim?  Considering you in particular, I
have _expressed_ respect for your superior knowledge of and skill in graphic
design and PDF language and composition in multiple forums, including
[https://technicallywewrite.com/2023/08/01/groffinterview a published
interview].  While I'm here, I'd add Perl programming to that list, and
believe I have already said as much on the mailing list.

And what's this about "inferiors"?  Where and how do I assert my superiority
over anyone?  Please cite examples.

On the other side of the coin, should anyone be deliberately committing
anything less than the best code they can come up with under the
circumstances?  And cannot peer review processes aid them to do so?  I'll
return to that point.

> In this bug for example, I initially gave you a one liner which illustrated
the problem:-

> xzcat /usr/share/man/man7/iso_8859-6.7.xz |preconv|nroff -Tutf8 -man -t -z


I wasn't sure what to make of it given my misapprehension of how special
character escape sequences (which, in this case, get internally transformed,
even after _preconv_ works on them) interact with _groff_'s composite
character concept.

Your bug report resembled a classic case of problem delivery by a manager,
wherein one walks up to a worker's desk, drops a stack of papers on it, says
"fix this", and walks away.

This approach to what we might call management is pretty common in my
professional experience, so I wouldn't say you violated any norms with that,
but by (1) not offering any resources in aid; nor (2) articulating any other
constraints on the problem's solution, it's fair for the worker to assume they
have broad latitude to resolve the issue as they see fit.  (This is largely by
design in corporate environments, as the manager then can attempt to claim
ignorance to escape liability when the worker's remedy ends up running afoul
of good taste, company policy, or the law.)  The "manager" has delegated
management, leaving the worker to manage themselves.

Which, I would add, ain't so bad.  The institutional risk is then that the
workers might figure out what value the manager _isn't_ bringing to the
organization, so to speak.

But, to return from my socialist critique of the U.S. tech sector
workplace...

> Then, over 2 weeks later, you post more than 1200 words, essentially
defending your change.

You have surprised me again!  Not so long ago you complained of me producing
too many words in too _short_ a time. 
[https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/groff/2024-02/msg00030.html "Yesterday,
you managed over 2900 words in approx 80 minutes whilst also doing a code
review, and probably 3 other things as well!"]

(Probably not even one other thing, if I'm honest.  I have many limitations
and a large cost when mentally switching contexts is one of them.)

Perhaps half of those 1200 words are quotations of text with which I assume
you're familiar as an active _groff_ developer.  (There is the complication of
your--interrupted--sabbatical, to which I return below.)

Is there a word count limit you'd like me to adhere to in my communications
with you?  Do quoted words count toward the limit?  Does it matter if the
quotations are of you, of myself, of third parties, or of groff documentation,
change logs, etc.?  Does the fact that I'm the author of some, but certainly
not all material in the last category influence this calculus?

A person could reasonably regard these questions as persnickety.  I think a
person could also wonder why you're assuming that I require you to do anything
but take all the time you need to respond.  Or don't reply at all if my
statements don't merit response, in your view.  This is a volunteer project.

But, if you are unavailable to collaborate on a solution, for whatever reason,
in such a volunteer project you must expect development to proceed in your
absence.  I know that you grasp this principle--to it, as well, I return
below.

> What am I to think? You know that if you "snow" me under with words I will
either give up or make myself ill trying to answer all your points.

Again you are assuming an extremely negative attitude on my part.  Why?  If
you require me to rate-limit my communications with you, please give me at
least some parameters to work with.

But to critique your analogy, 2 weeks sounds like ample time to prepare for a
snowstorm.  Especially comparing the ratios of 1200 words in two weeks to 2900
words in 80 minutes.  A quick _bc_(1) computation reveals that three orders of
magnitude separate these extremes.

Nevertheless, even between those generously spaced guard rails, if I'm candid
I don't think there is a Goldilocks solution here.  I surmise that your
biggest grievance with me lies elsewhere.

> I know you are not stupid so you must have run the example and seen the
errors it produced, but your reply was "no I am right to make this change".

Not exactly.  If I thought your report was invalid, I'd have closed it as
such.  Instead, it made me come to regard my change as incomplete.  Hence all
the stuff about font-specific composite characters.  That was me trying to
think through the issue.  I do that a lot.  It gives others the chance to
catch me out in error, so that my comprehension of the system can improve.  I
feel that expertise should be shared, not hoarded.  This attitude should not
shock you given the volume of my contributions to documentation.

And, regarding stupidity, I manage it all the time.  Like a lot of people, I
think.  My opinion is that engineering is, in part, the practice of
refashioning our tools and surroundings such that our innate stupidity has
less horrible consequences for us than it otherwise might.

For a distraction from our dispute, I recommend the story of the Los Alamos
"demon core", an assembly of plutonium that managed to kill two Ph.D.
researchers on separate occasions thanks to ad hoc processes of materials
handling rather than engineered ones.  Slotin and Daghlian were avowedly not
stupid men.  Yet they each managed to do stupid things.  Because they're
human.

> I hope you see my point that this behaviour seems autocratic.

No, not at all.  I think you have expectations of me that I am failing to
meet, but which you have not clearly expressed.

> I had to simplify the one liner for you to see the issue, but you then
insist that what you did was correct in some way, but you would undo it
anyway.

How do you know that?  Especially given that I gave up, reverted the commit,
and pushed.  I guess I'll have to ask you to take my word for it that the
(first) one-liner in comment #3 was a necessary and sufficient condition for
me to do that.  Another interpretation is I don't care about correct behavior
in _groff_ one way or the other, and you heroically prevailed over the
autocrat in this instance.

I don't think St. George and the dragon is a good model for teamwork.

But if I'm that easily defeated, I must underwhelm as a nemesis.

> Unfortunately, there are other examples of autocratic behaviour. How about
taking advantage of my sabbatical to introduce a change to pdf.tmac which not
only had bugs in it,

Introducing changes introduces bugs.  That is a fact of software development
everywhere.  If you question my commitment to quality, then I wonder how you
account for the approximately 200 automated tests I've written for _groff_.

> but caused one job to go from a few seconds to 13 minutes.

I have not been able to reproduce a degradation this severe, nor has Alex
Colomar.  Maybe you have another succinct comment #3-esque one-liner with
which to penetrate my scaly green hide again.

> A reasonable person would consult the author of pdf.tmac after his
sabbatical,

You haven't said you've returned from it, and indeed you have not replied to
the _groff_ list even in threads (mostly from Alex, I think) that looped it
in.  I therefore assume that are, technically, still on that sabbatical.  But
a FLOSS project does not suspend operations because one contributor goes on a
sabbatical.  [https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/groff/2024-04/msg00034.html
When I had a death in the family and announced my reduced availability, I
offered no clear timeline for my return to full status, and expressed no wish
for development to halt in my absence.]  Nor would I suppose that people
should have understood my message to imply such.  I still don't "feel" 100%,
but I'm slogging through.

If I wanted to repay you in the same coin with which you're trading with me, I
could observe that it took you only 3 days to interrupt your sabbatical and
swoop in with changes that were
[https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/groff-commit/2024-04/msg00030.html
under-documented] ("[V]arious problems have been resolved") and
[https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/groff-commit/2024-04/msg00124.html
themselves flawed].

So--is that really the road you want us walking down together?  I would prefer
not to.  I think we have complementary strengths when it comes to _groff_
development, strengths that can redound to the quality of the software and the
experiences of its users.

I have expressed respect for your abilities on multiple occasions, and expect
to continue to do so.  This respect is, however, not something you seem to be
absorbing, and so a tone of resentment creeps into your communications with
me.

Again, I feel that there are expectations you have of me (and possibly of
other _groff_ contributors) that you are not expressing.

To put my finger on one that I've raised before, more than once I think, and
to which you have not responded: if you feel that _gropdf_ should be your
personal playground, and other developers should not be touching it without
your prior agreement (much as Peter has with _mom_ [excepting, as I recall,
its Automake script and man page, which I do not understand to express his
authorial voice]), then you need to say so, and it needs to be moved to the
"contrib" directory of the repository so that the state of its maintenance is
clear.

The impact of such a change on users would be practically nil.  But it might
make development processes go more smoothly.

And, I must note, there are going to be limits even to the authorial
playground principle.  [https://www.wired.com/story/jia-tan-xz-backdoor/
Here's a sobering recent case study.]  Ideally, **all** code gets reviewed. 
Even that in playgrounds.

If a contribution does not merit peer review, it is not worth making in the
first place.

> an autocrat would just go and do it.

An autocrat feels no need to justify or motivate their actions.  I explain
mine at such length that it exasperates you (see _supra_).  Perhaps you are in
need of a better metaphor.
 
> Even something as innocuous as spacewidth in afmtodit yields examples.
Rather than something like "I agree with Deri" or "Deri is correct", we see
"Looks like Deri is right", which could be construed as adding an element of
surprise!

That's...one way to interpret it--again, one that is toward the negative pole
of plausible readings.  A more positive one is that you had considered a
possibility I hadn't--or thought I hadn't. 
[https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-groff/2024-05/msg00010.html As I said
in that very ticket], apparently I had made the change you recommended (or
something I thought was similar), already, years previously, unprompted by you
(as far as I recall), hadn't even remembered it, and was surprised at my own
lack of recollection.

I guess how far-fetched that is is an inescapably subjective matter.

(I see now that you've further replied to bug #65619.  Fortunately, my joints
do not ache with the threat of an impending blizzard.)

> And, I agree, I am skating on thin ice here, because we are considering
autocratic behaviour, and mere words add nought, to the scales, it just may be
indicative of the mind set which accompanies autocratic behaviour.

This may explain why I've been in such a hurry to seize the title of official
GNU maintainer of _groff_.  Seven years and I still ain't got it...

A ridiculous hairpiece and trophy wife also continue to elude me.  And my
bankruptcy counter sits at a pathetic zero.  At this rate I'll _never_ get
around to running for U.S. President!

To return to a serious tone, I think you have misconceived my function and
activities in this project.  I recommend that you ask other people whom you
respect how often they interpret my actions in the same light you have done.


    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?65601>

_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/