Re: [ros-svn] [ion] 16288: Satisfy blight's excessively arrogant attitude and overblown ego
26 Jun
2005
26 Jun
'05
3:45 p.m.
You are such an IDIOT!
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.
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.
IMO we should try to take care of others copyright (even if you dont like
them)
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!
26 Jun
26 Jun
5:09 p.m.
New subject: [ros-svn] [ion] 16288: Satisfy blight's excessively arrogant attitude and overblown ego
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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... I also find it childish that you keep telling everyone I don't
like you.
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. 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).
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.com
http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
5:59 p.m.
New subject: [ros-svn] [ion] 16288: Satisfy blight's excessivelyarrogant attitude and overblown ego
-----Original Message-----
From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.com [mailto:ros-dev-bounces@reactos.com] On Behalf Of Alex
Ionescu
Sent: 26. juni 2005 19:10
To: blight(a)blight.eu.org; ReactOS Development List
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Re: [ros-svn] [ion] 16288: Satisfy blight's
excessivelyarrogant attitude and
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.
Are you referring to the tip at
http://reactos.com/wiki/index.php/Best_practices_for_working_with_branches? I didn't
consider
copyright when I wrote this tip. I only considered it to be a solution to a technical
problem I encountered during development of
the new build system. There was some files on the branch which had nothing in common with
files in the trunk except the filename and
path, so I got merge conflicts every time I merged changes from trunk where these files
were changed on trunk. Also, this tip only
applies to branches other than trunk. Maybe I should make that more clear. If it is a
problem with copyright, we should remove this
tip.
Casper
6:22 p.m.
New subject: [ros-svn] [ion] 16288: Satisfy blight's excessively arrogant attitude and overblown ego
On Sunday 26 June 2005 17:09, Alex Ionescu wrote:
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)
Simply keeping the history wouldnt require that.
Yes, should be easy to prove that to a judge.
Anich Gregor wrote:
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.
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. 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?
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. 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... 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.
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. 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)
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.
Now please dont act so childish again to publicly insult me with such a dumb
commit message, asshole!
6:51 p.m.
New subject: [ros-svn] [ion] 16288: Satisfy blight's excessively arrogant attitude and overblown ego
Anich Gregor wrote:
This is a wiki page.
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)
Simply keeping the history wouldnt require that.
Actually that was KJK::Hyperion's idea. Stop misrepresenting things to
create false arguments in order to try to prove your point.
Yes, should be easy to prove that to a judge.
Cool, now please go and attack the dozens of other files which have the
same "problem".
On Sunday 26 June 2005 17:09, Alex Ionescu wrote:
Then all task switchers are the same.
Anich Gregor wrote:
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.
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.
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?
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.
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...
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.
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.
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)
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
7:02 p.m.
New subject: [ros-svn] [ion] 16288: Satisfy blight's excessively arrogant attitude and overblown ego
Both you guys need to grow up. One would swear this list was occupied
with 12 year olds. Guys, this project is supposed to be 'for fun'. If
you are going to flame each other, at least take it somewhere private.
Richard
Anich Gregor wrote:
On Sunday 26 June 2005 17:09, Alex Ionescu wrote:
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)
Simply keeping the history wouldnt require that.
Yes, should be easy to prove that to a judge.
Anich Gregor wrote:
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.
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.
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?
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.
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...
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.
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.
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)
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.
Now please dont act so childish again to publicly insult me with such a dumb
commit message, asshole!
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.com
http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
7:37 p.m.
New subject: [ros-svn] [ion] 16288: Satisfy blight's excessively arrogant attitude and overblown ego
On Sunday 26 June 2005 19:02, mail.comcast.net wrote:
Both you guys need to grow up. One would swear this
list was occupied
with 12 year olds. Guys, this project is supposed to be 'for fun'. If
you are going to flame each other, at least take it somewhere private.
Richard
If you are talking hexadecimal, then you are about right, so dont wonder :-P
7025
days inactive
7025
days old
6 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Alex Ionescu -
Anich Gregor -
Casper Hornstrup -
mail.comcast.net