Proper attribution of patches

Proper attribution of patches

[Harold L Hunt II]

The following CVS commit, made by Thomas Dickey, has no indication that 
Thomas was either a) not involved at all in the patch or b) that Thomas 
found Ralf Habacker's patch and committed a modified version of that patch.

The CVS log message says:
     fixes for _XtInherit on cygwin.

The hw/xfree86/CHANGELOG files says:
      XFree86 4.3.99.903 (xx December 2003)
      + 699. Fixes to build/run on cygwin (Thomas Dickey).

I know that this patch was based at least in part (if not entirely) on 
Ralf Habacker's patch for the same, since it includes a more than twenty 
line comment from Ralf along with his name at the bottom:

http://cvsweb.xfree86.org/cvsweb/xc/lib/Xt/Initialize.c.diff?r1=3.21&r2=3.22&f=h


Given the fact that XFree86 has shown little support for Cygwin in the 
past coupled with the fact that Cygwin/X is no longer associated with 
XFree86, I request that you take care to properly attribute patches from 
members of the Cygwin/X community.


Thank you,

Harold Hunt


Thomas Dickey wrote:

> CVSROOT:	/home/x-cvs
> Module name:	xc
> Changes by:	dickey@public.xfree86.org.	03/12/22 13:10:25
> 
> Log message:
>   fixes for _XtInherit on cygwin.
> 
> Modified files:
>       xc/lib/Xt/:
>         Initialize.c Vendor.c 
>   
>   Revision      Changes    Path
>   3.22          +61 -1     xc/lib/Xt/Initialize.c
>   1.8           +21 -2     xc/lib/Xt/Vendor.c
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cvs-commit mailing list
> Cvs-commit@XFree86.Org
> http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-commit
> 

Re: Proper attribution of patches

[Thomas Dickey]

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Harold L Hunt II wrote:

> The following CVS commit, made by Thomas Dickey, has no indication that
> Thomas was either a) not involved at all in the patch or b) that Thomas
> found Ralf Habacker's patch and committed a modified version of that patch.
>
> The CVS log message says:
>      fixes for _XtInherit on cygwin.
>
> The hw/xfree86/CHANGELOG files says:
>       XFree86 4.3.99.903 (xx December 2003)
>       + 699. Fixes to build/run on cygwin (Thomas Dickey).
>
> I know that this patch was based at least in part (if not entirely) on
> Ralf Habacker's patch for the same, since it includes a more than twenty
> line comment from Ralf along with his name at the bottom:
>
> http://cvsweb.xfree86.org/cvsweb/xc/lib/Xt/Initialize.c.diff?r1=3.21&r2=3.22&f=h

I'm aware of that.

Your commit didn't mention this either.  Do you have point?

-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net

Re: Proper attribution of patches

[Harold L Hunt II]

Thomas Dickey wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
> 
> 
>>The following CVS commit, made by Thomas Dickey, has no indication that
>>Thomas was either a) not involved at all in the patch or b) that Thomas
>>found Ralf Habacker's patch and committed a modified version of that patch.
>>
>>The CVS log message says:
>>     fixes for _XtInherit on cygwin.
>>
>>The hw/xfree86/CHANGELOG files says:
>>      XFree86 4.3.99.903 (xx December 2003)
>>      + 699. Fixes to build/run on cygwin (Thomas Dickey).
>>
>>I know that this patch was based at least in part (if not entirely) on
>>Ralf Habacker's patch for the same, since it includes a more than twenty
>>line comment from Ralf along with his name at the bottom:
>>
>>http://cvsweb.xfree86.org/cvsweb/xc/lib/Xt/Initialize.c.diff?r1=3.21&r2=3.22&f=h
> 
> 
> I'm aware of that.
> 
> Your commit didn't mention this either.

Our change log is in our release notes, where the changes were 
attributed to Ralf Habacker:

http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-xfree-announce/2003-10/msg00008.html

> Do you have point?

XFree86 should be taking care not to steal credit for our patches by 
committing them without proper attribution.

Harold Hunt

Re: Proper attribution of patches

[Thomas Dickey]

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Harold L Hunt II wrote:

> > Your commit didn't mention this either.
>
> Our change log is in our release notes, where the changes were
> attributed to Ralf Habacker:

tsk, tsk: the actual commit on the code change bears only your name.

A casual reader of that commit (and of this thread) would gain the false
impression that you did the work.

Try to make a point the next time you choose to waste my time.

-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net

Re: Proper attribution of patches

[Harold L Hunt II]

Thomas Dickey wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
> 
> 
>>>Your commit didn't mention this either.
>>
>>Our change log is in our release notes, where the changes were
>>attributed to Ralf Habacker:
> 
> 
> tsk, tsk: the actual commit on the code change bears only your name.
> 
> A casual reader of that commit (and of this thread) would gain the false
> impression that you did the work.
> 
> Try to make a point the next time you choose to waste my time.

You put *your* name in the change log message, making an active claim 
that you did the work.

It's okay to shy away from admitting that you are wrong and that you did 
a despicable thing; it doesn't bother me.  Of course, others may not 
view you so favorably.

Harold

Re: Proper attribution of patches

[Thomas Dickey]

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Harold L Hunt II wrote:

> XFree86 should be taking care not to steal credit for our patches by
> committing them without proper attribution.

your standards are inconsistent: your committing the change rather than
offering commit access to someone who solved a problem that (according
to the email thread) that had stopped you for some _months_ indicates
that your whole aim on this is to get credit for yourself.

I noted that the comment in the code was properly attributed, no further
action was needed.

-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net

Re: Proper attribution of patches

[Harold L Hunt II]

Thomas Dickey wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
> 
> 
>>XFree86 should be taking care not to steal credit for our patches by
>>committing them without proper attribution.
> 
> 
> your standards are inconsistent: your committing the change rather than
> offering commit access to someone who solved a problem that (according
> to the email thread) that had stopped you for some _months_ indicates
> that your whole aim on this is to get credit for yourself.

You must be right, you're always right.  Take a look at the bug I filed 
months ago:

http://bugs.xfree86.org/show_bug.cgi?id=804

=======================================================================
Patch will be attached shortly.  Only effects Cygwin.  Build tested, 
run-time
tested.  Change log entry:

Enable shared build of Xt, Xaw, Xaw6, and Xmu libraries on Cygwin (Ralf 
Habacker).
=======================================================================

Oops, looks like I was not trying to steal credit on that one.

Lets see, that makes three places where I gave proper credit for the 
patch and thanked Ralf for fixing it: 1) The Cygwin/X mailing list, 2) 
The change log for the updated packages, and 3) Bug 804 on bugs.xfree86.org.

At last count, the number of places where you gave proper credit was: 0.

The policy of the xoncygwin tree on SourceForge was that anyone that 
wanted access could have it; Ralf didn't want it since he was busy 
working on porting KDE to Cygwin/X.  Lets get back to the topic at hand: 
your blatant attempt to steal credit and refusal to acknowledge that you 
did so.

> I noted that the comment in the code was properly attributed, no further
> action was needed.

No, that is not good enough.  You should amend your change log entry to 
attribute the patch to Ralf and you should apologize to the X community 
at large for being so sloppy with attributing credit.

Harold

Re: Proper attribution of patches

[Thomas Dickey]

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Harold L Hunt II wrote:

> Thomas Dickey wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Your commit didn't mention this either.
> >>
> >>Our change log is in our release notes, where the changes were
> >>attributed to Ralf Habacker:
> >
> >
> > tsk, tsk: the actual commit on the code change bears only your name.
> >
> > A casual reader of that commit (and of this thread) would gain the false
> > impression that you did the work.
> >
> > Try to make a point the next time you choose to waste my time.
>
> You put *your* name in the change log message, making an active claim
> that you did the work.

get to the point.  or is logic beyond your capabilities?  All you can
focus on is that I didn't put _your_ name on the change.  A shame.
But given your previous behavior, entirely expected.

Your so-called "announcement" was followup email to the _same_ people
who had been able to watch the discussion of the problem.  That's
not an announcement.

hmm - no overall changelog entry for the project, no webpage giving
project news.  Just a mailing list (subscription-only ;-).

-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net

Re: Proper attribution of patches

[Harold L Hunt II]

Thomas Dickey wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
> 
> 
>>Thomas Dickey wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Your commit didn't mention this either.
>>>>
>>>>Our change log is in our release notes, where the changes were
>>>>attributed to Ralf Habacker:
>>>
>>>
>>>tsk, tsk: the actual commit on the code change bears only your name.
>>>
>>>A casual reader of that commit (and of this thread) would gain the false
>>>impression that you did the work.
>>>
>>>Try to make a point the next time you choose to waste my time.
>>
>>You put *your* name in the change log message, making an active claim
>>that you did the work.
> 
> 
> get to the point.  or is logic beyond your capabilities?  All you can
> focus on is that I didn't put _your_ name on the change.  A shame.

I have stated numerous times that the patch is attributed to Ralf 
Habacker.  Do not claim that you think I am asking for my name to be on 
the patch; I have not done so, I am not doing so, and I will not do so.

Put Ralf's name in the change log!!!

Get that?

Put Ralf's name in the change log!!!

 > But given your previous behavior, entirely expected.

Very mature Thomas.

> Your so-called "announcement" was followup email to the _same_ people
> who had been able to watch the discussion of the problem.  That's
> not an announcement.
> 
> hmm - no overall changelog entry for the project, no webpage giving
> project news.  Just a mailing list (subscription-only ;-).

I gave you a link to that change log entry.

Please, stop trying to change the topic away from the fact that you are 
trying to steal credit for Ralf's patch.

Give Ralf credit for the work that he did and stop your silly attempt to 
save face by arguing with me.

Harold

Re: Proper attribution of patches

[Eric Anholt]

On Tue, 2003-12-23 at 11:32, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
> 
> > XFree86 should be taking care not to steal credit for our patches by
> > committing them without proper attribution.
> 
> your standards are inconsistent: your committing the change rather than
> offering commit access to someone who solved a problem that (according
> to the email thread) that had stopped you for some _months_ indicates
> that your whole aim on this is to get credit for yourself.
> 
> I noted that the comment in the code was properly attributed, no further
> action was needed.

I see only minor inconsitency on his part, that the original commit of
that code didn't attribute it to its author in the CVS logs, while at
least some other commits do note authors of patches.  However, he didn't
explicitly take credit for it, like you did in the ChangeLog, and his
announcement of new packages with those changes reflects the author
correctly.  I don't see Harold Hunt asking for his name to be on the
patch in any way, only the patch's author's name (the "members of the
Cygwin/X community" in the original mail).

The only responsible thing for you to do would be to correct the
ChangeLog to attribute it to the patch's author.

-- 
Eric Anholt                                eta@lclark.edu          
http://people.freebsd.org/~anholt/         anholt@FreeBSD.org

Re: Proper attribution of patches

[Thomas Dickey]

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Harold L Hunt II wrote:

> Put Ralf's name in the change log!!!

you first.

(hmm - that's an appropriate pun).

-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net

Re: Proper attribution of patches

[Thomas Dickey]

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Eric Anholt wrote:

> The only responsible thing for you to do would be to correct the
> ChangeLog to attribute it to the patch's author.

well that's polite enough.
unlike Harold.

no problem.

-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net

Re: Proper attribution of patches

[Thomas Dickey]

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Harold L Hunt II wrote:

> No, that is not good enough.  You should amend your change log entry to
> attribute the patch to Ralf and you should apologize to the X community
> at large for being so sloppy with attributing credit.

yes, you're right.  now I'll have to scrutinize your commits more closely
to see who actually did the work.

-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net

Re: Proper attribution of patches

[Harold L Hunt II]

Thomas Dickey wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
> 
> 
>>Put Ralf's name in the change log!!!
> 
> 
> you first.

Ralf's name is already in our change log, but our change log is not in CVS.

I guess I need to show you that you actively took credit for the patch 
again:

The hw/xfree86/CHANGELOG files says:
      XFree86 4.3.99.903 (xx December 2003)
      + 699. Fixes to build/run on cygwin (Thomas Dickey).

Are you saying that you are not going to change that entry from your 
name to Ralf Habacker?  That really is despicable.

> (hmm - that's an appropriate pun).

That's an immature statement.

Harold

Re: Proper attribution of patches

[Harold L Hunt II]

Thomas Dickey wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
> 
> 
>>No, that is not good enough.  You should amend your change log entry to
>>attribute the patch to Ralf and you should apologize to the X community
>>at large for being so sloppy with attributing credit.
> 
> 
> yes, you're right.

Thanks.

>  now I'll have to scrutinize your commits more closely
> to see who actually did the work.

Hold on.  Lets assume that I had made the change.  So, we are assuming, 
hypothetically, that the patch should have been attributed to me.  In 
that case you are still in the wrong because you attributed the patch to 
yourself, not to me (even though I did not make the change).  You cannot 
escape the fact that *you* *took* credit for the patch; you did not 
assign it to the wrong person due to a mistake in interpreting the 
change log entries, you actually *took* credit for yourself and didn't 
mention the fact that you got the patch from another project.

Harold

Re: Proper attribution of patches

[Harold L Hunt II]

Thomas Dickey wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Eric Anholt wrote:
> 
> 
>>The only responsible thing for you to do would be to correct the
>>ChangeLog to attribute it to the patch's author.
> 
> 
> well that's polite enough.
> unlike Harold.

I have not been rude in this discussion.

I have repeatedly asked you to attribute the change to the author.  I 
did not start by making personal attacks like you did, nor did I respond 
in kind to your personal attacks.

> no problem.

Great.  That's all I have been asking for all along.

Harold

Re: Proper attribution of patches

[Alan Hourihane]

On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 02:02:20PM -0500, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
> 
> > The following CVS commit, made by Thomas Dickey, has no indication that
> > Thomas was either a) not involved at all in the patch or b) that Thomas
> > found Ralf Habacker's patch and committed a modified version of that patch.
> >
> > The CVS log message says:
> >      fixes for _XtInherit on cygwin.
> >
> > The hw/xfree86/CHANGELOG files says:
> >       XFree86 4.3.99.903 (xx December 2003)
> >       + 699. Fixes to build/run on cygwin (Thomas Dickey).
> >
> > I know that this patch was based at least in part (if not entirely) on
> > Ralf Habacker's patch for the same, since it includes a more than twenty
> > line comment from Ralf along with his name at the bottom:
> >
> > http://cvsweb.xfree86.org/cvsweb/xc/lib/Xt/Initialize.c.diff?r1=3.21&r2=3.22&f=h
> 
> I'm aware of that.
> 
> Your commit didn't mention this either.  Do you have point?

Thomas,

If you did get this code directly from Cygwin/X's tree then I'd of
expected at least the credit to be apportioned to Harold at the very
least, rather than putting your name against it. Ralf's name could have
been corrected later, with a follow email from Harold.

It's a simple change to put that right in the CHANGELOG. So I'll do that.

Alan.

Re: Proper attribution of patches

[Harold L Hunt II]

Alan Hourihane wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 02:02:20PM -0500, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> 
>>On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The following CVS commit, made by Thomas Dickey, has no indication that
>>>Thomas was either a) not involved at all in the patch or b) that Thomas
>>>found Ralf Habacker's patch and committed a modified version of that patch.
>>>
>>>The CVS log message says:
>>>     fixes for _XtInherit on cygwin.
>>>
>>>The hw/xfree86/CHANGELOG files says:
>>>      XFree86 4.3.99.903 (xx December 2003)
>>>      + 699. Fixes to build/run on cygwin (Thomas Dickey).
>>>
>>>I know that this patch was based at least in part (if not entirely) on
>>>Ralf Habacker's patch for the same, since it includes a more than twenty
>>>line comment from Ralf along with his name at the bottom:
>>>
>>>http://cvsweb.xfree86.org/cvsweb/xc/lib/Xt/Initialize.c.diff?r1=3.21&r2=3.22&f=h
>>
>>I'm aware of that.
>>
>>Your commit didn't mention this either.  Do you have point?
> 
> 
> Thomas,
> 
> If you did get this code directly from Cygwin/X's tree then I'd of
> expected at least the credit to be apportioned to Harold at the very
> least, rather than putting your name against it. Ralf's name could have
> been corrected later, with a follow email from Harold.
> 
> It's a simple change to put that right in the CHANGELOG. So I'll do that.

Thanks Alan!

Harold

Re: Proper attribution of patches

[Thomas Dickey]

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Alan Hourihane wrote:

> Thomas,
>
> If you did get this code directly from Cygwin/X's tree then I'd of
> expected at least the credit to be apportioned to Harold at the very
> least, rather than putting your name against it. Ralf's name could have
> been corrected later, with a follow email from Harold.
>
> It's a simple change to put that right in the CHANGELOG. So I'll do that.

I had that on my next set of commits.  Except for the _XtInherit one, the
fixes were idiot-level ones that I fixed inline, compared to X.Org and
sync'd.  So no credit is owed for those.

However, there's a chunk of ifdef's in config/cf that I intend to use, so
that merits a note.

It's not from "Cygwin/X" tree, but freedesktop.org - though of course I
did the proper research to see what the whole story was.  All of this got
my attention since the current cygwin/X packages are broken, as Harold is
well aware.

-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net

Re: Proper attribution of patches

[Brian E. Gallew]

Do you actually do anything useful?  Or do you just steal other people's 
code and then act annoying (and childish) when someone calls you on it?

Re: Proper attribution of patches

[Brian E. Gallew]

Argh.  That was supposed to go to our good friend Thomas Dickey. 
Somebody in Pittsburgh, PA stop by and slap me.

Re: Proper attribution of patches

[Thomas Dickey]

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Harold L Hunt II wrote:

> Thomas Dickey wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Eric Anholt wrote:
> >
> >
> >>The only responsible thing for you to do would be to correct the
> >>ChangeLog to attribute it to the patch's author.
> >
> >
> > well that's polite enough.
> > unlike Harold.
>
> I have not been rude in this discussion.

rofl: get someone (intelligent & patient) to read your first posting
and explain it to you.  I don't have the bandwidth.

-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net

Re: Proper attribution of patches

[Frédéric L. W. Meunier]

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Brian E. Gallew wrote:

> Do you actually do anything useful?  Or do you just steal other people's
> code and then act annoying (and childish) when someone calls you on it?

You can see for yourself what he does:

http://invisible-island.net/
ftp://invisible-island.net/

Thomas, stop the discussion and go work on 2.8.5dev.17. Sorry,
I couldn't resist.

Happy Christmas and New Year to all.

-- 
http://www.pervalidus.net/contact.html

Re: Proper attribution of patches

[Harold L Hunt II]

Thomas Dickey wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Alan Hourihane wrote:
> 
> 
>>Thomas,
>>
>>If you did get this code directly from Cygwin/X's tree then I'd of
>>expected at least the credit to be apportioned to Harold at the very
>>least, rather than putting your name against it. Ralf's name could have
>>been corrected later, with a follow email from Harold.
>>
>>It's a simple change to put that right in the CHANGELOG. So I'll do that.
> 
> 
> I had that on my next set of commits.

Then why not say so earlier?

> Except for the _XtInherit one, the
> fixes were idiot-level ones that I fixed inline, compared to X.Org and
> sync'd.  So no credit is owed for those.

I agree.

> However, there's a chunk of ifdef's in config/cf that I intend to use, so
> that merits a note.

Fine with me.

> It's not from "Cygwin/X" tree, but freedesktop.org - though of course I
> did the proper research to see what the whole story was.

Well, if you were referring to the freedesktop.org tree all along, then 
those commits were made by another developer when he imported the entire 
tree to synch with our old xoncygwin tree on SourceForge.net.

> All of this got
> my attention since the current cygwin/X packages are broken, as Harold is
> well aware.

Our packages are not broken, if you meant the version that we distribute.

XFree86 proper does not currently have a Cygwin port maintainer; the 
packages are expected to be broken.

Harold

Re: Proper attribution of patches

[Harold L Hunt II]

Thomas Dickey wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
> 
> 
>>Thomas Dickey wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Eric Anholt wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The only responsible thing for you to do would be to correct the
>>>>ChangeLog to attribute it to the patch's author.
>>>
>>>
>>>well that's polite enough.
>>>unlike Harold.
>>
>>I have not been rude in this discussion.
> 
> 
> rofl: get someone (intelligent & patient) to read your first posting
> and explain it to you.  I don't have the bandwidth.

I wouldn't laugh so hard.  You have made a fool of yourself in public 
and discredited your own reputation.

Harold

Re: Proper attribution of patches

[Thomas Dickey]

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Eric Anholt wrote:

> I see only minor inconsitency on his part, that the original commit of
> that code didn't attribute it to its author in the CVS logs, while at
> least some other commits do note authors of patches.  However, he didn't
> explicitly take credit for it, like you did in the ChangeLog, and his

um, no.  What I explicitly took credit for was spending the better part of
two working days filtering through the differences to see which ones were
needed to build cygwin/X.

> announcement of new packages with those changes reflects the author
> correctly.  I don't see Harold Hunt asking for his name to be on the
> patch in any way, only the patch's author's name (the "members of the
> Cygwin/X community" in the original mail).

tsk - you ought to read those mailing list postings more critically.

> The only responsible thing for you to do would be to correct the
> ChangeLog to attribute it to the patch's author.

done.

-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net

Re: Proper attribution of patches

[Harold L Hunt II]

Thomas Dickey wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Eric Anholt wrote:
> 

[snip]

>>announcement of new packages with those changes reflects the author
>>correctly.  I don't see Harold Hunt asking for his name to be on the
>>patch in any way, only the patch's author's name (the "members of the
>>Cygwin/X community" in the original mail).
> 
> 
> tsk - you ought to read those mailing list postings more critically.

Are you prepared to cite evidence that I asked for my name to be on the 
patch?  If not, that is libel and I am asking you to stop.

>>The only responsible thing for you to do would be to correct the
>>ChangeLog to attribute it to the patch's author.
> 
> 
> done.

That was easy, wasn't it?

Harold

Re: Proper attribution of patches

[Thomas Dickey]

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Harold L Hunt II wrote:

> >>been corrected later, with a follow email from Harold.
> >>
> >>It's a simple change to put that right in the CHANGELOG. So I'll do that.
> >
> >
> > I had that on my next set of commits.
>
> Then why not say so earlier?

There was no point in doing so.

-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net

Re: Proper attribution of patches

[Thomas Dickey]

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Harold L Hunt II wrote:

a lot of words.

-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net

Re: Proper attribution of patches

[Harold L Hunt II]

Thomas Dickey wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
> 
> 
>>>>been corrected later, with a follow email from Harold.
>>>>
>>>>It's a simple change to put that right in the CHANGELOG. So I'll do that.
>>>
>>>
>>>I had that on my next set of commits.
>>
>>Then why not say so earlier?
> 
> 
> There was no point in doing so.

Sure there was: you would not have exposed yourself as a hypocrite by 
doing exactly that which you denounce on your home page (pointed out by 
Daniel Armburst).  You lambast those "egotistical plagiarists" that 
steal credit for patches by not properly attributing them to their 
authors, yet you did the same thing and threw a tantrum when I pointed 
it out:

http://dickey.his.com/gnu-patches/gnu-patches.html

"This is a collection of some of the patches which I have made to GNU 
programs. I have submitted these patches to the appropriate maintainers, 
but received no acknowledgment. That is, they were ignored. In a few 
other cases, I have seen my changes incorporated without credit, but 
that is another matter. The former (nonexistent or non-responsive 
maintainers) are preferable to the latter (egotistical plagiarists). [...]"

You own self interest would have been the point in coming clean earlier.

Harold

Re: Proper attribution of patches

[Thomas Dickey]

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Harold L Hunt II wrote:

> Sure there was: you would not have exposed yourself as a hypocrite by
> doing exactly that which you denounce on your home page (pointed out by
> Daniel Armburst).  You lambast those "egotistical plagiarists" that

yes, I can imagine that you admire them.

-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net

Re: Proper attribution of patches

[Harold L Hunt II]

Thomas Dickey wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
> 
> a lot of words.

The modus operandi of Thomas Dickey:

1) Stick head in sand
2) ???


Harold

Re: Proper attribution of patches

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 05:34:46PM -0500, Thomas Dickey wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
>>Sure there was: you would not have exposed yourself as a hypocrite by
>>doing exactly that which you denounce on your home page (pointed out by
>>Daniel Armburst).  You lambast those "egotistical plagiarists" that
>
>yes, I can imagine that you admire them.

Any chance that we could stop this now?

Has everyone made their point?  Or are there still more insinuations and
name calling to be made here?

Re: Proper attribution of patches

[Harold L Hunt II]

David Dawes wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 01:25:52PM -0500, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
> 
>>The following CVS commit, made by Thomas Dickey, has no indication that 
>>Thomas was either a) not involved at all in the patch or b) that Thomas 
>>found Ralf Habacker's patch and committed a modified version of that patch.
>>
>>The CVS log message says:
>>    fixes for _XtInherit on cygwin.
>>
>>The hw/xfree86/CHANGELOG files says:
>>     XFree86 4.3.99.903 (xx December 2003)
>>     + 699. Fixes to build/run on cygwin (Thomas Dickey).
>>
>>I know that this patch was based at least in part (if not entirely) on 
>>Ralf Habacker's patch for the same, since it includes a more than twenty 
>>line comment from Ralf along with his name at the bottom:
>>
>>http://cvsweb.xfree86.org/cvsweb/xc/lib/Xt/Initialize.c.diff?r1=3.21&r2=3.22&f=h
>>
>>
>>Given the fact that XFree86 has shown little support for Cygwin in the 
>>past coupled with the fact that Cygwin/X is no longer associated with 
>>XFree86, I request that you take care to properly attribute patches from 
>>members of the Cygwin/X community.
> 
> 
> The only thing I have to add to this long thread is that I am
> confident that you will naturally take care to ensure that correct
> individual attributions will be made in the Cygwin changelog
> (wherever that may be maintained) for all changes that end up in
> your source tree either via direct integration or the import of
> XFree86 snapshots.

I'll do my part, as always.

Harold

RE: Proper attribution of patches

[Frédéric L. W. Meunier]

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Alec Mihailovs wrote:

> I didn't follow all of the discussion and I am not a friend
> of Harold, but I would be happy to become his friend in the
> future. Harold seems to be a really nice guy spending his
> free time on the Cygwin X development.

Agreed.

> Dickey seems to be a really dick as somebody already noted,
> or a really dangerous moron as I would say.

Not at all if you follow lynx-dev, where I never had or noticed
a personal problem since I subscribed for the first time in
1998.

You can't please everyone. Some users didn't like what the mICQ
wrote at
http://www.micq.org/pipermail/micq-list/2003-December/001025.html
, others didn't like foo, and I don't like some developers...

> Only because of his persistent moronity Cygwin/XFree became
> Cygwin/X. I wonder what other people on the XFree project
> think about that? Are they the same kind of morons? If so,
> then welcome Cygwin/X and forget about existence of XFree.

Well, I don't know what Thomas does in XFree86 besides
maintaining XTerm. Anyway, too bad the whole thing moved to
personal attacks, which apparently started 2 months ago (at
least on cygwin-xfree):

http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-xfree/2003-10/msg00321.html
http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-xfree/2003-10/msg00322.html

It's fine if you don't like each other and it doesn't cause any
prejudice to the projects, but better keep the discussion off
list. 38 e-mails for such a thread is too much. I think it's
time to put an end now.

-- 
How to contact me - http://www.pervalidus.net/contact.html

RE: Proper attribution of patches

[Alec Mihailovs]

I didn't follow all of the discussion and I am not a friend of Harold,
but I would be happy to become his friend in the future. Harold seems to
be a really nice guy spending his free time on the Cygwin X development.
Dickey seems to be a really dick as somebody already noted, or a really
dangerous moron as I would say. Only because of his persistent moronity
Cygwin/XFree became Cygwin/X. I wonder what other people on the XFree
project think about that? Are they the same kind of morons? If so, then
welcome Cygwin/X and forget about existence of XFree. 

Dr. Alec Mihailovs 
http://webpages.shepherd.edu/amihailo/ 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-xfree-owner@cygwin.com
[mailto:cygwin-xfree-owner@cygwin.com]
> On Behalf Of Thomas Dickey
> Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 6:49 PM
> To: devel@XFree86.Org
> Cc: 'cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com'
> Subject: RE: Proper attribution of patches
> 
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Armbrust, Daniel C. wrote:
> 
> I've seen your postings before, and have no use for your opinions.
> (that seems to be a common trait of Harold's friends - I don't have to
> address each one of them).
> 
> --
> Thomas E. Dickey
> http://invisible-island.net
> ftp://invisible-island.net

RE: Proper attribution of patches

[Armbrust, Daniel C.]

Wow, your still so pissed off about being wrong, now you are attacking all of Harold's friends.  Boy, you're a big powerful man.  Let me bow before you.

#1.  I do not know Harold.  All I know about him is what I have learned by following this list for about a year.
#2.  I don't know you.  All I know about you is what you are posting to this list.
#3.  I don't need to defend my current opinion.  It is correct.  The only reason you are still posting like a 10 year old is because you know it is correct.  If my opinion is wrong, why don't you actually respond to the points that I and others have made, instead of trying to insult more people?
#4.  My past postings addressed the same issue.  The XFree86 people tend to behave like spoiled brat 10 years olds, fighting Harold every way that they can, while he continues to remain civil and present facts to support his issue, while the person on the other side ignores the facts and calls him names.
#5.  I have taken a small part in many other opensource projects (mostly under the jakarta umbrella) and I have never seen someone be as disrespectful and unhelpful as you (except for a couple of others on the XFree86 list, the last time they attacked Harold).  Maybe someone can enlighten me as to the history of the project administrators of XFree86 becoming the enemies of the project?  I would almost think they are on Microsofts payroll.

You are continuing to act like a complete schmuck.

Apologies to everyone else that continues to be annoyed by this pissing match.  I'm going to start enjoying the holidays now, so I'm done posting for a while :)

Dan



-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Dickey [mailto:dickey@his.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 5:49 PM
To: devel@XFree86.Org
Cc: 'cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com'
Subject: RE: Proper attribution of patches


On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Armbrust, Daniel C. wrote:

I've seen your postings before, and have no use for your opinions.
(that seems to be a common trait of Harold's friends - I don't have to
address each one of them).

-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net

RE: Proper attribution of patches

[Thomas Dickey]

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Armbrust, Daniel C. wrote:

I've seen your postings before, and have no use for your opinions.
(that seems to be a common trait of Harold's friends - I don't have to
address each one of them).

-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net

RE: Proper attribution of patches

[Armbrust, Daniel C.]

Thomas, as a casual observer of your behavior in respect to Harold, your last name would describe you better if it were shortened to "Dick".

Here is a Quote from Mr. Dickeys webpage where he is whining about not getting credit for patches he wrote:

"This is a collection of some of the patches which I have made to GNU programs. I have submitted these patches to the appropriate maintainers, but received no acknowledgment. That is, they were ignored. In a few other cases, I have seen my changes incorporated without credit, but that is another matter. The former (nonexistent or non-responsive maintainers) are preferable to the latter (egotistical plagiarists)."

And now, he is the one trying to claim credit for others work.

Very adult of you.  Thomas, you wouldn't let Harold commit patches.  Now that he has moved the project, you are stealing his (and in this case) other peoples patches.  Why don't you people grow up?

Harold, thank you for continuing the work you do, and for putting up with these egotistical jerks in XFree86 land.

Dan


-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Dickey [mailto:dickey@his.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 1:58 PM
To: devel@XFree86.Org
Cc: cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: Proper attribution of patches


On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Harold L Hunt II wrote:

> Thomas Dickey wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Your commit didn't mention this either.
> >>
> >>Our change log is in our release notes, where the changes were
> >>attributed to Ralf Habacker:
> >
> >
> > tsk, tsk: the actual commit on the code change bears only your name.
> >
> > A casual reader of that commit (and of this thread) would gain the false
> > impression that you did the work.
> >
> > Try to make a point the next time you choose to waste my time.
>
> You put *your* name in the change log message, making an active claim
> that you did the work.

get to the point.  or is logic beyond your capabilities?  All you can
focus on is that I didn't put _your_ name on the change.  A shame.
But given your previous behavior, entirely expected.

Your so-called "announcement" was followup email to the _same_ people
who had been able to watch the discussion of the problem.  That's
not an announcement.

hmm - no overall changelog entry for the project, no webpage giving
project news.  Just a mailing list (subscription-only ;-).

-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net