Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [ trollish line snipped ]
> On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 11:37:22PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > > >> > 28_cdda2wav_interface.dpatch Patch with unclear target.... > >> > People should rather educated by Debian > >> > how to correctly specify dev= arguments > >> > for libscg > >> > >> The original cdda2wav did not force its users to use special syntax, > >> alienating the usual device access method via /dev/* files. From my POV > >> the patch restores the compatibility that you have broken a while ago. > > > >This is of course complete nonsense. Please educate yourself by reading > >the cdda2wav man page. > > > >The behavior we are talking about has been introduced more than 6 years > >ago while starting to implement proper DAE support that is not limited by > >kernel quality. > > Yes, and this patch allows people to use the SCSI DAE support without > having to specify devices using b,t,l. Which makes it more consistent > with cdrecord. You did just step into my trap, thank you for proving that you are uninformed. If you like to become a Debian maintainer for the cdrtools project, you would first need to inform yourself well enough about the cdrtools project, it's basic rules and it's current state. You fail to do this and the problems you have with the project are caused by the fact that you refuse to inform yourself first. Please do not try to make other people responsible for your problems. > >> > 33_extra_arch_boot_support.dpatch Introducing this code would > >> > cause a lot > >> > of testing in order to maintain > >> > quality.... > >> > >> Yes, ... and? IMO Steve has enough skills to maintain it. > > > >If Steve has the needed skills, why is he unable to have a decent > >fact based conversation? > > > >We did have this discussion already in January or Februaray and Steve did > >write > >a lot of wrong things. After I did ask him to prove his claims, he did not > >reply anymore. > > "a lot of wrong things" on planet Schily maybe. I stopped responding > to you because it was a fruitless conversation. As apparently is any > conversation where people don't just agree with you... Have a look at Sigmund Freud..... What you do here is a classical form of "projection". It's you who is (at least definitely was) missing the ability to have a fruitful discussion. But I do never give up, except maybe for the Linux kernel developers who did fail to have a non-personal discussion 5 times in a line. So once you seem to be able to have a fruitful discussion, I am willing to discuss things with you again. If you are unable to give senseful technical based arguments to "fight" for your ideas, you should expect that other people will not take you for serious. If you believe that your work is senseful, you should be able to explain your background to other people. You did fail to do this in the close past. > >I am willing to integrate useful things as long as they follow some rules. > >See: > > > > ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/CONTRIBUTING > > > >for more information > > Yes, and I tried to do that in July 2004, see Debian bug#259344. On > the 19th July 2004 I submitted a reformatted patch to you with all of > your stated requirements met. On the 22nd July in private mail to you > (message ID [EMAIL PROTECTED]) I asked again if you'd > had time to look into the patch any further. I never had any reply > from you to either of those emails, so I gave up. See above: You did fail to get in touch with the project first. If you did, you did know that at that time, we have been a few weeks before cdrtools-2.01-final have been published. A rule of thumb for collaboration: Do never try to aproach project maintainers with patch requests if the project is currently in an absolute code freeze state. Also note that there are people who are working om much more OpenSource projects than you and that work on a lot bigger projects. I did clearly tell you that you did send me your patch at the wrong time and in case you have at least some small antennas to the world outside, you should know that I have been heavily involved with the OpenSolaris project in the time after cdrtools-2.01-final have been published. The further development of cdrtools had been susoended for that reason and did recently start again... I did not check your mail from 2004, but I always tell people who approach me with pathes to remind me later if they do not see a useful patch integrated after some time. Back to your claim that you did send me a properly indented variant. If you did, why do you still use a different patch that fails to conform to: ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/CONTRIBUTING > >> > 34_JTE.dpatch Looks like something that > >> > breaks > >> > mkisofs > >> > >> There is no smoke, no core file, so I cannot see anything breaking. > > > >In case this would make sense for integration, there would be sufficient > >documentation and white papers as well as code review.... > > > >The current code definitely violates §5 and §6 from: > > > >ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/CONTRIBUTING > > And, as also described back in July 2004 - I don't expect you to > integrate this patch. Its use is Debian specific. Any properly done patch that fits into the project and that follows the rules in ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/CONTRIBUTING has a big chance to become integrated, but note that I am trying to keep and extend the quality of the project. In case that you send a bigger patch (and it seems that 34_JTE.dpatch is a bigger patch) you need to send sufficient documentation and background material too. You have the right to help with OSS projects, but it is not the duty of a project maintainer to include it in special in case you fail to follow the rules of the project. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
