Re: [ros-dev] Ros-dev Digest, Vol 46, Issue 23

[Olaf Siejka]

@Jimtabor: do you have a better candidate for ROS project coordinator post
than Fireball? Not that i see many likely candidates.

For some time i prefered to stay silent, not to take part in this outcry...
But this forced me to do otherwise:

>   MY final word:
> I deleted all code I have been working on so do not ask for it, This
> is final word from me and bye from my part from this project you have
> great thanks to fireball why I quitting. 
Great... i thought you were older and a bit more mature. This is not better
than a 13y old boy, crying, offended by the whole world, wanting to avenge
himself. Childish, childish, childish...

>  One thing more do not forget that steven is starting
> paying some of the 
devs
>  in ReactOS , he and fireball are trying to go
> Commercial so they trying
> shutdown ReactOS and make it into project codename unros. This info is not
> public and only few devs known of it, and of cures he will deny this. 
One more thing, it is a secret, that Magnus Olsen has been bought off by
Microsoft, to leave ReactOS and, in the process to stirr and agitate ROS
team. He has been already paid a hefty sum in advance. This info is not
public and only handfull of people know it. Magnus will, of course, deny all
of this.


Seriously, in my country, we have a saying: "If God wishes to punish
someone, he starts with stripping one of his brain". Nuff said...

[Richman Reuven]

hi! i've been following the project for a couple of months and this kind 
of drama, i really didn't expect...

both sides have a point.
a serious project needs a working tree and a work-on tree. (the temp 
working implementation vs correct implementation by magnus isn't a 
simple issue, perhaps there should be another tree for that as well or 
for it to be a work-on-far tree like linux-staging tree - to work on 
things which don't enter the next release...)
but asking one developer (and quite an experienced, one of the top 
contributors) to be the only one to be double checked is...
coding conventions also do matter. however I don't think that the diff 
between !f00 and f00==false is what's causing the breakage.

i really don't understand how such a project at this stage, doesn't 
adapt any of the methods used by virtually every other project to manage 
the process...
also as far as the "it's a private problem" opinions, it couldn't be any

more wrong! this kind of thing and these decisions will be _hunting_ the 
project for a long while!
i know both sides seem to be in a "pinch" but it'd be really best if you 
guys said "sorry i was wrong" in private and reported the issue as 
resolved...

sorry for the intrusion...

[James Tabor]

Yes! Before the audit we had a release manager. It was his
responsibility to track down which code segments worked and test them.
I guess right, that was Ge job at one time when we had cvs. Things
have slimed down since then and many developers left the project. I
guess now due to laziness on our part this has been unfilled. Since we
have svn now we do branches and that job went to Brandon, he's gone
too so~. Yes we are lazy and the easiest fix to all of this mess was
to create a release branch and sync fixes to that like I use to do.
Basically doing the thing Aleksey wants to do in the first place with
out starting a fight.

On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 5:51 AM, Richman Reuven
<richman.reuven(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>   hi! i've been following the project for a couple
> of months and this kind
>  of drama, i really didn't expect...
>
>  both sides have a point.
>  a serious project needs a working tree and a work-on tree. (the temp
>  working implementation vs correct implementation by magnus isn't a
>  simple issue, perhaps there should be another tree for that as well or
>  for it to be a work-on-far tree like linux-staging tree - to work on
>  things which don't enter the next release...)
>  but asking one developer (and quite an experienced, one of the top
>  contributors) to be the only one to be double checked is...
>  coding conventions also do matter. however I don't think that the diff
>  between !f00 and f00==false is what's causing the breakage.
>
>  i really don't understand how such a project at this stage, doesn't
>  adapt any of the methods used by virtually every other project to manage
>  the process...
>  also as far as the "it's a private problem" opinions, it couldn't be
> any
>  more wrong! this kind of thing and these decisions will be _hunting_ the
>  project for a long while!
>  i know both sides seem to be in a "pinch" but it'd be really best if you
>  guys said "sorry i was wrong" in private and reported the issue as
>  resolved...
>
>  sorry for the intrusion... 
No,,,, good one~