Re: [PATCH 1/2] user32/tests: Test DialogBoxParam using a dialog template with invalid control class.
Andrew Eikum <aeikum(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
From: Dmitry Timoshkov <dmitry(a)baikal.ru>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Eikum <aeikum(a)codeweavers.com> --- dlls/user32/tests/dialog.c | 6 ++++++ dlls/user32/tests/resource.rc | 6 ++++++ 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+)
I think that I've expressed my opinion clear enough in my response to your private e-mail that I don't allow you to send my patches included in the wine-staging tree to winehq, and explained well enough my reasoning. The only person who has my permission is Sebastian Lackner - wine-staging maintainer. I'm too sometimes sending the patches, but I have to admit that's pretty rare cases these days, and usually that's not my personal decision. Please try to find your own areas to work on, and stop stealing patches created by somebody else, especially when directly asked not to. -- Dmitry.
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 09:57:10PM +0800, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
Andrew Eikum <aeikum(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
From: Dmitry Timoshkov <dmitry(a)baikal.ru>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Eikum <aeikum(a)codeweavers.com> --- dlls/user32/tests/dialog.c | 6 ++++++ dlls/user32/tests/resource.rc | 6 ++++++ 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+)
I think that I've expressed my opinion clear enough in my response to your private e-mail that I don't allow you to send my patches included in the wine-staging tree to winehq, and explained well enough my reasoning. The only person who has my permission is Sebastian Lackner - wine-staging maintainer. I'm too sometimes sending the patches, but I have to admit that's pretty rare cases these days, and usually that's not my personal decision.
I asked Sebastian to send it on IRC. He told me to go ahead and send it, so I did.
Please try to find your own areas to work on, and stop stealing patches created by somebody else, especially when directly asked not to.
Perhaps you should go re-read the LGPL. Andrew
Andrew Eikum <aeikum(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
I think that I've expressed my opinion clear enough in my response to your private e-mail that I don't allow you to send my patches included in the wine-staging tree to winehq, and explained well enough my reasoning. The only person who has my permission is Sebastian Lackner - wine-staging maintainer. I'm too sometimes sending the patches, but I have to admit that's pretty rare cases these days, and usually that's not my personal decision.
I asked Sebastian to send it on IRC. He told me to go ahead and send it, so I did.
Please try to find your own areas to work on, and stop stealing patches created by somebody else, especially when directly asked not to.
Perhaps you should go re-read the LGPL.
It's not about licensing, it's about respect. You asked me a permission privately - I answered that I don't allow it. That's it. -- Dmitry.
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 10:09:10PM +0800, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
It's not about licensing, it's about respect. You asked me a permission privately - I answered that I don't allow it. That's it.
I didn't ask your permission privately, I asked if the patch was unsafe for inclusion in Wine. The purpose of wine-staging is to prepare and test patches for inclusion in Wine. Again, I asked Sebastian to send it on your behalf, precisely to avoid this argument. He told me to send it instead, so I did. Andrew
Andrew Eikum <aeikum(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 10:09:10PM +0800, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
It's not about licensing, it's about respect. You asked me a permission privately - I answered that I don't allow it. That's it.
I didn't ask your permission privately, I asked if the patch was unsafe for inclusion in Wine.
You asked is it OK to send my patches to winehq, and my response was - No.
The purpose of wine-staging is to prepare and test patches for inclusion in Wine.
My personal motivation for sending patches to wine-staging is pretty different.
Again, I asked Sebastian to send it on your behalf, precisely to avoid this argument. He told me to send it instead, so I did.
I'd appreciate if you could avoid sending my patches without my permission in future. Thanks. -- Dmitry.
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 10:29:49PM +0800, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
Andrew Eikum <aeikum(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
The purpose of wine-staging is to prepare and test patches for inclusion in Wine.
My personal motivation for sending patches to wine-staging is pretty different.
I don't think you should abuse wine-staging for your own purposes. Regardless, don't get angry at me when I *do* use it for its intended purpose.
Again, I asked Sebastian to send it on your behalf, precisely to avoid this argument. He told me to send it instead, so I did.
I'd appreciate if you could avoid sending my patches without my permission in future. Thanks.
If you don't want your code used under the terms of the LGPL then I suggest you stop releasing code under the terms of the LGPL. Andrew
Andrew Eikum <aeikum(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
Again, I asked Sebastian to send it on your behalf, precisely to avoid this argument. He told me to send it instead, so I did.
I'd appreciate if you could avoid sending my patches without my permission in future. Thanks.
If you don't want your code used under the terms of the LGPL then I suggest you stop releasing code under the terms of the LGPL.
Once again: it's not about licensing, it's about respect. You had admitted in the private e-mail (when you asked about permission to send my patches) that you are not familiar with that code, and asked for my opinion. But once you've received my response you decided to ignore my opinion. So, you took my patches that you have no idea what are doing and sent to wine-patches with your own sign-off pretending that you had reviewed the patch. That's at least pretty rude and ridiculous behaviour, isn't it? -- Dmitry.
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 11:51:55PM +0800, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
Andrew Eikum <aeikum(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
Again, I asked Sebastian to send it on your behalf, precisely to avoid this argument. He told me to send it instead, so I did.
I'd appreciate if you could avoid sending my patches without my permission in future. Thanks.
If you don't want your code used under the terms of the LGPL then I suggest you stop releasing code under the terms of the LGPL.
Once again: it's not about licensing, it's about respect. You had admitted in the private e-mail (when you asked about permission to send my patches) that you are not familiar with that code, and asked for my opinion. But once you've received my response you decided to ignore my opinion. So, you took my patches that you have no idea what are doing and sent to wine-patches with your own sign-off pretending that you had reviewed the patch. That's at least pretty rude and ridiculous behaviour, isn't it?
No. If you don't want to participate in the wine-staging process, you should stop contributing to wine-staging. Andrew
Andrew Eikum <aeikum(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
Again, I asked Sebastian to send it on your behalf, precisely to avoid this argument. He told me to send it instead, so I did.
I'd appreciate if you could avoid sending my patches without my permission in future. Thanks.
If you don't want your code used under the terms of the LGPL then I suggest you stop releasing code under the terms of the LGPL.
Once again: it's not about licensing, it's about respect. You had admitted in the private e-mail (when you asked about permission to send my patches) that you are not familiar with that code, and asked for my opinion. But once you've received my response you decided to ignore my opinion. So, you took my patches that you have no idea what are doing and sent to wine-patches with your own sign-off pretending that you had reviewed the patch. That's at least pretty rude and ridiculous behaviour, isn't it?
No. If you don't want to participate in the wine-staging process, you should stop contributing to wine-staging.
Please don't try to pretend that you are participating in some process, especially when you clearly have no idea what's that. What you are doing is stealing the work done by somebody else, admitting at the same time that you are not familar with that code. -- Dmitry.
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 12:08:14AM +0800, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
Please don't try to pretend that you are participating in some process, especially when you clearly have no idea what's that. What you are doing is stealing the work done by somebody else, admitting at the same time that you are not familar with that code.
Golly, I wonder why no one respects you. Andrew
Andrew Eikum <aeikum(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 12:08:14AM +0800, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
Please don't try to pretend that you are participating in some process, especially when you clearly have no idea what's that. What you are doing is stealing the work done by somebody else, admitting at the same time that you are not familar with that code.
Golly, I wonder why no one respects you.
Thank you mister "no one". I guess that providing good argumentation or investigating a problem and creating a patch that solves it is much more work than stealing somebody else patches and once receiving a complaint start speculating around. -- Dmitry.
On 17.08.2017 16:29, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
Andrew Eikum <aeikum(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 10:09:10PM +0800, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
It's not about licensing, it's about respect. You asked me a permission privately - I answered that I don't allow it. That's it.
I didn't ask your permission privately, I asked if the patch was unsafe for inclusion in Wine.
You asked is it OK to send my patches to winehq, and my response was - No.
The purpose of wine-staging is to prepare and test patches for inclusion in Wine.
My personal motivation for sending patches to wine-staging is pretty different.
Again, I asked Sebastian to send it on your behalf, precisely to avoid this argument. He told me to send it instead, so I did.
I'd appreciate if you could avoid sending my patches without my permission in future. Thanks.
@ Dmitry: The whole discussion is really ridiculous. First of all, don't blame Andrew, blame me. I told him that it is fine to send those patches. More importantly, if you plan to continue contributing to Wine Staging, you either have to send all of your patches yourself in a timely manner, or accept that other people pick up your patches and improve / send them. I have no idea why you see this as an insult. What are people supposed to do when they would like to get the bug fixed, and your solution is considered the right one? Would you prefer if people write an identical patch, and send it with their own name? (No, this is not meant as a serious question...) It is not really reasonable to expect everyone else to wait for your agreement / until you do it yourself. I also don't expect this for my own patches. In fact, I even appreciate when other people help with improving and upstreaming our stuff. Best regards, Sebastian
On 17.08.2017 15:57, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
Andrew Eikum <aeikum(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
From: Dmitry Timoshkov <dmitry(a)baikal.ru>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Eikum <aeikum(a)codeweavers.com> --- dlls/user32/tests/dialog.c | 6 ++++++ dlls/user32/tests/resource.rc | 6 ++++++ 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+)
I think that I've expressed my opinion clear enough in my response to your private e-mail that I don't allow you to send my patches included in the wine-staging tree to winehq, and explained well enough my reasoning. The only person who has my permission is Sebastian Lackner - wine-staging maintainer. I'm too sometimes sending the patches, but I have to admit that's pretty rare cases these days, and usually that's not my personal decision.
Please try to find your own areas to work on, and stop stealing patches created by somebody else, especially when directly asked not to.
I think I have also made clear, that all patches included in Wine Staging are provided under the LGPL2 license, which does not allow any additional contraints. Everyone is welcome to improve them, send them, or do with them whatever they want, as long as authorship and license is preserved (which is the case here). There is really no reason to complain. Best regards, Sebastian Lackner
participants (3)
-
Andrew Eikum -
Dmitry Timoshkov -
Sebastian Lackner