Re: [gnome-flashback] [gnome-panel] Fix window-list applet bug on vertical panel 03_tasklist_orientation.patch from debian. This require

[Alberts Muktupāvels <alberts muktupavels gmail com>]

Hi Philipp,

Am 18.06.2014 21:47, schrieb Alberts Muktupāvels:

> First no one is going to sue anyone because of two simple lines. Also
> as I wrote we can simply write both Jean-Marc Bourguet and Josselin
> Mouette as authors in NEWS and everyone will be happy.

Yeah, but when writing the news file, I look at the Author information
in git. So that needs to be correct and reliable.

Now you know correct authors! And still there is no new release.

 

> Your requirements are way to high for deprecated software.

My requirements are the same as for any other FLOSS project without a
CLA out there. It has nothing to do with deprecation. Moreover, if we
ever want to get out of the deprecation status, we all need to do good,
clean work. That includes you.

Each day you are writing something else. In past you wrote that you don't see how flashback project can survive (or something similar), but now you want get out of deprecated status? How you are planing to do that?

 

> 1. License problem. I gave links where it clearly wrote that it is GPL.

No, it is _not_ clear from that. That bug report basically just says "I
commited a different license file". Nothing about if that license
applies, is agreed by the authors, etc.

> Also GPL is mentioned in some source code files.

_Now_ we're getting somewhere. Looking at the actual intention of the
authors - what a novel idea. And now, a quick grep will reveal, that our
own libpanel-applet has code under LGPL (of course), bus also
gnome-panel, and the applets accessx-status, mixer, notification-area,
wncklet, battstat, as well as code in libpanel-applet-private and libegg.

How should we handle that ? A different directory structure ? A detailed
LICENSE file ? (Do the Debian packages have one of the machine-readable
ones already ?)

We are not getting anywhere. As it seems you even don't want to understand and/or don't read other emails.

Why there is need for different structure? We have COPYING and COPYING.LIB license files. Is that problem? It has not been for years. I know that our applets have LGPL mentioned, I did read what Sebastian and Vincent was discussing.

Now we want merge gnome-applets. Currently it has LGPL license and it seems it has been added by mistake. gnome-applets is NOT library. Also bug and commit for adding that license file speaks about GPL not LGPL.

So where is real problem? I dont see how adding other GPL applets into directory which already have GPL applets is problem for you.

 

> If that not enough than think logically - is gnome-applets library? I
> think not. It is clear that it is mistake. Also what you have done to
> resolve this? Have you tried to contact some or something else?
> Probably not, you are just waiting until all work will be done by
> someone else.

Yes. It's _your_ idea and wish to merge gnome-applets into gnome-panel.
Why should I do the preparation work for that ? Prepare something
sensible to review, and I'll do the review for you, and tell you an
"approved" or "declined, back to the drawing board". At the moment, it's
the latter.

This is not my idea. I got that idea from here - https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/GnomeFlashback.

 

> 2. Than next thing I remember - reason to fix patch. You did not like
> variable name 'grid' when I wrote patch to port gtktable to gtkgrid.
> Name 'table' has worked for years. Name 'grid' works everywhere I
> found. No one has had problem with it, but you had.

Yes, and I'm the maintainer. That's my prerogative.

If you would strain your brain a little harder, you'd also remember the
context. I had suggested to replace the grid not by a GtkGrid, but
directly by a GtkBox (that can change v/h direction also, and would need
much less realignment code). You were not willing to do that. OK, so I
asked you to change the variable name directly to something more
universal, so we don't need to change it again, when we finally do move
to GtkBox. You were not even willing to consider that either. I let it
stand, trying to be patient with you while you learned. Maybe I
shouldn't have.

I wrote patch. Why I would rewrite it when there is no real reason for it? Also I don't see why we would need to change that name.

In my opinion GtkGrid makes for sense than GtkBox. My intention was to port deprectad GtkTable to GtkGrid (as it is meant to replace GtkTable) not to do some code re-factoring or something like that.

Also it would not be enough to change GtkBox direction as you would have to change at least button arrow type too. Using GtkBox would require more work, more time. I have to work too so you are not only one with little time.

For me this sounds like this. You don't like daughter, but like mother. So everybody has to like mother.

 

> 3. You want me to track down authors of some very old code. I have
> seen even comments like 'stolen from' for copy&paste codes and it has
> not been problem for others while you have found problem even I link
> to place from where I copied it. Without speaking it is same gnome
> project.

Just because others are careless doesn't excuse you being that, neither
here nor in metacity. If you have no respect for other people's work and
copyright, there's probably no place for you in the FLOSS community.

> 4. I spend many time to make matacity to work with gtk+3, but again
> you are just trying to find problems. There was plenty off time. Why
> did not you do that all work in "right" way?

I never saw metacity on GTK+3 as all that essential. I outlined what I
thought is important, but you seem not interested in those jobs. So
don't be surprised that I'm not all that interested in the areas you
_do_ work on.

I did however, spend hours and hours reviewing patches from mate-panel
and mate-window-manager (now marco), which _do_ have a Gtk+3 port.
_But_, they seem at least as unappreciative of other people's copyright
as you are, so I had to track for every single patch where it might have
come from (and often a bunch of patches were committed as one). So I
eventually gave up merging any code from the Mate project. That is also
the reason why I decided not to take over metacity maintainership.

_If_ somebody from the mate project had volunteered to prepare a number
of good patches for submission back upstream, or even pepare their
branch for merging back, I would have been at least as hard on them wrt.
proper copyright attribution as I am on you.

> If you have so little time than why did you became maintainer?

Because nobody else did it, and I had hoped I'd have a business case for
this work. As I indicated, I am willing to hand over to or share
maintainership with somebody who has proven they can be trusted with the
responsibility. You have not qualified.

> I tried to make gnome-panel better. Have not seen anyone reporting
> that something has been broken because of my commits. It been reported
> that it works better.

No, "less buggy but with copyright infringement" is not "better". Once
and for all.

Name some real infringements. Have I wrote that someone else work is mine? Have I stolen something? No.

Yes, there is missing real author name in commits, but mostly I have wrote at least from where I have copied that patch. There are commits where I have wrote author in commit message. Is that infringement too?

 

> But I do understand! I am that bad guy, I am doing every possible
> thing in wrong way, I am breaking last things that works.

You are not listening. You like to code. Good for you (I like it too).
But have taken over responsibility for _maintaining_  the code. And I
take that responsibility seriously.

Either you are interested in getting your code in a state ready for
upstream inclusion, and are willing to learn the ropes. Then I'm willing
to continue to spend time teaching you, so you will someday be able to
submit your own code _always_ in a good state, and be proud of it. _Or_
you just want to code a little one-off for yourself, and not care what
other people think of your work. Then please do that, but don't pretend
your are part of the FLOSS community.

> I will use GNOME Flashback (gnome-panel) in one or other way. I can
> return to my github branch and continue what I have started and don't
> look to upstream anymore.

You probably shouldn't even publish on github in that case. Branches
like that, with partially improper code attribution and diverging from
upstream, are useless for distribution packagers anyhow.

Why? Because you are not interested that does not mean that other are not interested too. Also I like that I have copy somewhere else so I can get my work in case my ssd fails. It is published and will be published if I will continue to work on github branch.

> If you want I can leave. Is that what you want? Is that what everyone
> on this mailing-list wants?

No, I never said that. I said you should finally get a grip on the _basics_:
* proper code attribution
* including proper git author and git date
* preserving the above with merges, rebases and cherry-picks, as appropriate
* (generally proper git usage)
* sending patches / patch series in for review, _before_ committing to
master
* when submitting large bundles of work, coordinate with us
* when submitting other people's work, do a license and authorship
review first

_Then_ we can actually start talking about contents, and it makes sense
for me to (constructively) criticize your patches on a _content_ level.

> P.S. If I have wrote something offensive then I apologize for that.

Yes you have. I understand you feel frustrated. Please take two or three
days to calm down, and then reply, and let us know if and how much you'd
like to participate in the future.

--

Alberts Muktupāvels