[ros-dev] Re: [ros-svn] [ion] 16288: Satisfy blight's excessively arrogant attitude and overblown ego

[Alex Ionescu]

Anich Gregor wrote:

>On Sunday 26 June 2005 17:09, Alex Ionescu wrote:
>  
>
>>Anich Gregor wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>You are such an IDIOT!
>>>      
>>>
>>Please don't resort to name-calling.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>If i wanted to see my copyright in the file i could add it to each file i
>>>touch, like you do.
>>>
>>>I was just saying that it was bad to base a new file on a old one, copying
>>>blocks of the old one into the new one (or rewriting them - at the end one
>>>sees its the same code with different syntax), then remove the original
>>>authors copyright (dwelch), add his own name, svn delete the old file and
>>>add the new file instead of moving and keeping all copytrights in the
>>>file/history.
>>>      
>>>
>>See, you're misrepresenting what happened in order to prove yourself
>>right. The new file was based on the old one as much as any OS's context
>>switcher is based in any other OS's. I barely even looked at the old
>>file when writing the code, except for your FPU code.
>>    
>>
>
>The new file looks like a optimized version of the old file - what you do and 
>how you do it looks much like the old code did it, but more efficient.
>  
>
Then all task switchers are the same.

>  
>
>>Before talking about dwelch's copyright, you should know that I actually
>>talked to some developers about how much is a derivative work and how
>>much is new code and the differences and copyrights.
>>You should also know that our development guidelines RECOMMEND that if
>>file has been re-written (and even if it was only changing syntax,
>>that's pretty much a rewrite) it should be svn deleted and svn added.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>Did you know we recommend gcc 3.3.3, and some other stuff which might not be 
>correct in all situations?
>  
>
This is a wiki page.

>  
>
>>I spent a great amount of time working on that file and I really don't
>>appreciate you telling me that all I did was "copy, rewrite, remove
>>name, add mine". It's extremly disrespectful.
>>    
>>
>
>Yes, it is disrespectful, but you should ask yourself why i am not more 
>respectful to you... i dont like your attitude.
>
>  
>
>>>You said you didnt know who wrote the FPU code (after i said that i have
>>>written it and noone can see that because of the deleted history), but you
>>>would have had to assume that it was written by dwelch if thats the only
>>>name in the file (and add his name to the new file) or simply keep the
>>>history of the file so everyone can see which part was written by whom.
>>>So the file said it was written by dwelch, while the history showed that
>>>it was written by me (i didnt want to add my copyright into the file,
>>>knowing that people can see from the history that i have written it was
>>>enough satisfaction) - and now the history is gone and the file leaves
>>>the impression that everything was written 100% by you.
>>>      
>>>
>>Yes, the history was deleted, yes, I only added my name because the only
>>other code still in there is yours, and your name wasn't there before,
>>so I assumed that you didn't want it added back.
>>    
>>
>
>If it wasnt there before, how could one want it to be _added back_? i think 
>you are misunderstanding that this was not what i wanted (and i wouldnt ask 
>you to do it, i could do that myself)
>
>  
>
>>99% of people would've 
>>assumed that David wrote the old code too, and any project copying that
>>file woudl've LOST the svn history as well, so nobody would've known
>>that you wrote it either.
>>    
>>
>
>99% of people looking at hostilix source will assume that it was written by 
>them.
>
>  
>
>>>IMO we should try to take care of others copyright (even if you dont like
>>>them)
>>>      
>>>
>>I've always insisted on someone doing a "svn log" and adding everyone's
>>names... 
>>    
>>
>
>Simply keeping the history wouldnt require that.
>
>  
>
>>I also find it childish that you keep telling everyone I don't 
>>like you.
>>    
>>
>
>I was referring to you when you ask people if they want to join the "David 
>Welch haters club" or whatever you call it.
>  
>
Actually that was KJK::Hyperion's idea. Stop misrepresenting things to 
create false arguments in order to try to prove your point.

>  
>
>>>I never asked you to add my copyright back to the file, and you would also
>>>have to add david welch again (and all the others from the old history
>>>which worked on the file), no only me!
>>>      
>>>
>>I totally agree, except that David doesn't really hold any copyright in
>>the file anymore, not even derivative. 
>>    
>>
>
>Yes, should be easy to prove that to a judge.
>
>  
>
>>Unless you consider the general 
>>process of switching stacks, editing TSS, updating LDT and CR3 as
>>copyrighted by David (you will notice that most of these opertions are
>>done differently in my code).
>>    
>>
>
>I was thinking of the effort which others have put into the code to get it 
>right (do the right thing at the right time, fix some bugs by adding some 
>code and so on) - you cannot tell me that you have written the new code 
>without looking at the old code or thinking of how the old code did things.
>
>I just wanted to say that IMO it would have been better to keep the history, 
>because others have put lotsa effort into developing the concept which you 
>improved (and implemented in a rewrite)
>  
>
Cool, now please go and attack the dozens of other files which have the 
same "problem".

>
>
>I remember when you asked me if i had an idea why your rewrite crashes when 
>graphics mode is switched on, and i could immediately tell you why - you 
>didnt save and restore ESP0 in the TSS, which wasnt needed before i added the 
>FPU stuff, and it took me a few days to find out that i have to save it and 
>restore it to make it work with my other changes. Do you consider such stuff 
>"general"?
>The history of the old code shows that i have added that part, in the new 
>code/history there's no notice of it.
>  
>
Actually I think the commit message does say "Added hack for our broken 
memory manager, thanks to Blight", or something similar.

>
>
>Now please dont act so childish again to publicly insult me with such a dumb 
>commit message, asshole!
>  
>
Had you not added this, you would've truly shown superiority.... 
unfortuately this just proves you're no better then me :)
(and that all human beings act on impulse, so whatever, let's forget this).

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu