Re: gdiplus: Implement trivial case of GdipCreateRegionRgnData for empty and infinite regions
Nikolay Sivov <nsivov(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
First bits for https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34843
What is the reason of reimplementing it when wine-staging already includes full implementation with tests? https://github.com/wine-compholio/wine-staging/blob/master/patches/gdiplus-G... -- Dmitry.
On 09.06.2015 9:24, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
Nikolay Sivov <nsivov(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
First bits for https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34843
What is the reason of reimplementing it when wine-staging already includes full implementation with tests?
https://github.com/wine-compholio/wine-staging/blob/master/patches/gdiplus-G...
The reason is simple, to have this actually implemented in wine. The fact that it's included somewhere doesn't help with that. When I asked you yesterday to submit it, that was your response https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34843#c12.
On 9 June 2015 at 08:34, Nikolay Sivov <bunglehead(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The reason is simple, to have this actually implemented in wine. The fact that it's included somewhere doesn't help with that.
I'll add to that that you can't expect actual Wine developers to keep track of everything that is or isn't in wine-staging or other random forks. If you want patches included in Wine, send them to wine-patches, if not, I think it's fair to assume you're not interested in upstreaming them. That's everyone's own prerogative, but you can't then complain about it afterwards.
On 09.06.2015 08:34, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
On 09.06.2015 9:24, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
Nikolay Sivov <nsivov(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
First bits for https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34843
What is the reason of reimplementing it when wine-staging already includes full implementation with tests?
https://github.com/wine-compholio/wine-staging/blob/master/patches/gdiplus-G...
The reason is simple, to have this actually implemented in wine. The fact that it's included somewhere doesn't help with that.
When I asked you yesterday to submit it, that was your response https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34843#c12.
Hello Nikolay, I can only repeat what I already tried to tell you several times on IRC. With your current approach, taking existing patches, rewriting them in your own style, and then submitting them upstream, you are not really helping to solve existing problems with patch acceptance. Are you planning to rewrite all Staging patches, and send them upstream on your own? If there is nothing wrong with Dmitrys patch you could easily submit it as-is, and give proper attribution. If there is something wrong, you could inform him about the issues you found, so he can improve it. The reason why he doesn't want to resend is most likely that the last few attempts were without any useful comments. Regards, Sebastian
On 09.06.2015 9:47, Sebastian Lackner wrote:
On 09.06.2015 08:34, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
On 09.06.2015 9:24, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
Nikolay Sivov <nsivov(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
First bits for https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34843
What is the reason of reimplementing it when wine-staging already includes full implementation with tests?
https://github.com/wine-compholio/wine-staging/blob/master/patches/gdiplus-G...
The reason is simple, to have this actually implemented in wine. The fact that it's included somewhere doesn't help with that.
When I asked you yesterday to submit it, that was your response https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34843#c12.
Hello Nikolay,
I can only repeat what I already tried to tell you several times on IRC. With your current approach, taking existing patches, rewriting them in your own style, and then submitting them upstream, you are not really helping to solve existing problems with patch acceptance.
I'm not trying to solve anything, we got a bug, patch was attached, no interest to work on it from its author, and no attempts to send/improve it from you guys by the way.
Are you planning to rewrite all Staging patches, and send them upstream on your own?
Of course not, I don't think we need them all.
If there is nothing wrong with Dmitrys patch you could easily submit it as-is, and give proper attribution.
I'm not sending something that even original author doesn't care about.
If there is something wrong, you could inform him about the issues you found, so he can improve it. The reason why he doesn't want to resend is most likely that the last few attempts were without any useful comments.
I think Dmitry knows how patch submission process works.
Regards, Sebastian
On 09.06.2015 09:02, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
On 09.06.2015 9:47, Sebastian Lackner wrote:
On 09.06.2015 08:34, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
On 09.06.2015 9:24, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
Nikolay Sivov <nsivov(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
First bits for https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34843
What is the reason of reimplementing it when wine-staging already includes full implementation with tests?
https://github.com/wine-compholio/wine-staging/blob/master/patches/gdiplus-G...
The reason is simple, to have this actually implemented in wine. The fact that it's included somewhere doesn't help with that.
When I asked you yesterday to submit it, that was your response https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34843#c12.
Hello Nikolay,
I can only repeat what I already tried to tell you several times on IRC. With your current approach, taking existing patches, rewriting them in your own style, and then submitting them upstream, you are not really helping to solve existing problems with patch acceptance.
I'm not trying to solve anything, we got a bug, patch was attached, no interest to work on it from its author, and no attempts to send/improve it from you guys by the way.
"I am not planning to resend the same version over and over again" doesn't mean that there is no interest from the author. I'm pretty sure that Dmitry would be interested in useful feedback or just getting his patch accepted. Besides that I'm always surprised how you try to blame Wine Staging for not doing certain things. Wine Staging is a community project, you can also participate by suggesting improvements for patches or helping to get them upstream while keeping the original author.
Are you planning to rewrite all Staging patches, and send them upstream on your own?
Of course not, I don't think we need them all.
Haha ;)
If there is nothing wrong with Dmitrys patch you could easily submit it as-is, and give proper attribution.
I'm not sending something that even original author doesn't care about.
See above, not resending the same version over and over again has nothing to do with not caring about it. It has something to do with specific contributions not taken serious enough.
If there is something wrong, you could inform him about the issues you found, so he can improve it. The reason why he doesn't want to resend is most likely that the last few attempts were without any useful comments.
I think Dmitry knows how patch submission process works.
You mean he is long enough involved in Wine development to know that some thing are just broken by design?
Regards, Sebastian
I think you're fairly well aware of my opinions on wine-staging by now, so I won't repeat that discussion here. One additional thing I would like to point out though, is that if you guys are seriously interested in working with upstream to get patches committed as you claim (as opposed to e.g. just trolling for page hits), antagonizing the people you're supposedly trying to work with may not be an optimal strategy.
Henri Verbeet <hverbeet(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I think you're fairly well aware of my opinions on wine-staging by now, so I won't repeat that discussion here. One additional thing I would like to point out though, is that if you guys are seriously interested in working with upstream to get patches committed as you claim (as opposed to e.g. just trolling for page hits), antagonizing the people you're supposedly trying to work with may not be an optimal strategy.
Did you think about that it's a two way road? Apparently one of the main reasons why wine-staging has been created is because of winehq maintainership inflexibility. -- Dmitry.
On 9 June 2015 at 11:48, Dmitry Timoshkov <dmitry(a)baikal.ru> wrote:
Henri Verbeet <hverbeet(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I think you're fairly well aware of my opinions on wine-staging by now, so I won't repeat that discussion here. One additional thing I would like to point out though, is that if you guys are seriously interested in working with upstream to get patches committed as you claim (as opposed to e.g. just trolling for page hits), antagonizing the people you're supposedly trying to work with may not be an optimal strategy.
Did you think about that it's a two way road? Apparently one of the main reasons why wine-staging has been created is because of winehq maintainership inflexibility.
Well, that's probably news to a lot of people. As originally stated, the reason for creating wine-staging was more along the lines of helping new developers with getting their patches up to the proper quality. And yes, of course it's a two way road, if I still thought there was any hope of wine-staging turning into a net-positive for Wine, I would certainly have been more careful about how I phrased things.
Henri Verbeet <hverbeet(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I think you're fairly well aware of my opinions on wine-staging by now, so I won't repeat that discussion here. One additional thing I would like to point out though, is that if you guys are seriously interested in working with upstream to get patches committed as you claim (as opposed to e.g. just trolling for page hits), antagonizing the people you're supposedly trying to work with may not be an optimal strategy.
Did you think about that it's a two way road? Apparently one of the main reasons why wine-staging has been created is because of winehq maintainership inflexibility.
Well, that's probably news to a lot of people. As originally stated, the reason for creating wine-staging was more along the lines of helping new developers with getting their patches up to the proper quality.
That's probably another reason then.
And yes, of course it's a two way road, if I still thought there was any hope of wine-staging turning into a net-positive for Wine, I would certainly have been more careful about how I phrased things.
So it's actually you who intentioanlly "antagonizing the people you're supposedly trying to work with"? -- Dmitry.
On 9 June 2015 at 12:16, Dmitry Timoshkov <dmitry(a)baikal.ru> wrote:
So it's actually you who intentioanlly "antagonizing the people you're supposedly trying to work with"?
Well, no, at this point I see no value in trying to work with wine-staging anymore. Perhaps I may be able to convince a couple of other contributors that submitting patches to wine-staging isn't going to make them any more likely to get into upstream Wine though. For what it's worth, I think you and I agree on the latter point, if perhaps for different reasons. Sebastian and Michael seem to disagree, at least sometimes.
Wow guys, I think everyone needs to turn it down a notch. I realize that everyone is frustrated with the decreasing relevance of Wine in the SteamOS era, but we are still members of a very important and interesting project that impacts a lot of users. Nikolay is understandably upset that he feels that staging patches are not getting sent upstream fast enough, some of that is our fault (we’re volunteer, and I know I've been busy with work or out of town a lot lately) and some of that is the submission process (limit on number of "in flight" patches, for example). There are a variety of ways that we can resolve this kind of problem (merge windows, patch sign-offs, etc.) without upsetting each other. It’s also important to mention that a lot of our time gets spent in rebasing patches; the CSMT patches in particular take up a lot of Sebastian’s time. Sebastian and Dmitry are clearly upset that Dmitry's work on the patch that started this thread was not mentioned in the upstreaming email. This kind of issue is always a hard needle to thread, it’s clearly important to get patches out to the community quickly but it’s also important to be respectful of all the sources of feedback on patches. I think we can all agree that the system Wine currently has in place for submitting, accepting, and commenting on patches isn't working for the community. Since that system results in frustration on both sides of the submission process, I think we should seriously consider discussing revisions to the system at this year’s WineConf. I’ve been out of town for a while, so I’m not actually aware of what issues are concerning Henri. However, antagonizing each other is clearly not going to solve issues either way - we need to come together and discuss these things in the calmest manner we can manage so that everyone gets a chance to have their opinions heard and considered. I realize that this email is getting a little long, but I think that it’s important to mention that wine-staging is not just a volunteer effort - we also have no financial interest in the project. We do not ask users for money, we have no advertising, and we pay for our server space and Ubuntu build time out of our own pockets. We have absolutely no incentive to do this except for the good of the Wine project by preparing patches for inclusion (both from newer contributors and for those with lower AJ ranks such as myself). Best, Erich
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Thanks Eric, nice email. bye michael On 06/09/2015 05:59 PM, Erich E. Hoover wrote:
Wow guys, I think everyone needs to turn it down a notch. I realize that everyone is frustrated with the decreasing relevance of Wine in the SteamOS era, but we are still members of a very important and interesting project that impacts a lot of users.
Nikolay is understandably upset that he feels that staging patches are not getting sent upstream fast enough, some of that is our fault (we’re volunteer, and I know I've been busy with work or out of town a lot lately) and some of that is the submission process (limit on number of "in flight" patches, for example). There are a variety of ways that we can resolve this kind of problem (merge windows, patch sign-offs, etc.) without upsetting each other. It’s also important to mention that a lot of our time gets spent in rebasing patches; the CSMT patches in particular take up a lot of Sebastian’s time.
Sebastian and Dmitry are clearly upset that Dmitry's work on the patch that started this thread was not mentioned in the upstreaming email. This kind of issue is always a hard needle to thread, it’s clearly important to get patches out to the community quickly but it’s also important to be respectful of all the sources of feedback on patches. I think we can all agree that the system Wine currently has in place for submitting, accepting, and commenting on patches isn't working for the community. Since that system results in frustration on both sides of the submission process, I think we should seriously consider discussing revisions to the system at this year’s WineConf.
I’ve been out of town for a while, so I’m not actually aware of what issues are concerning Henri. However, antagonizing each other is clearly not going to solve issues either way - we need to come together and discuss these things in the calmest manner we can manage so that everyone gets a chance to have their opinions heard and considered.
I realize that this email is getting a little long, but I think that it’s important to mention that wine-staging is not just a volunteer effort - we also have no financial interest in the project. We do not ask users for money, we have no advertising, and we pay for our server space and Ubuntu build time out of our own pockets. We have absolutely no incentive to do this except for the good of the Wine project by preparing patches for inclusion (both from newer contributors and for those with lower AJ ranks such as myself).
Best, Erich
- -- Michael Stefaniuc Tel.: +49-711-96437-199 Supervisor, APAC/EMEA IT Network Fax.: +49-711-96437-111 - -------------------------------------------------------------------- Reg. Adresse: Red Hat GmbH, Werner-von-Siemens-Ring 14, 85630 Grasbrunn Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 153243 Geschäftsführer: Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham, Michael O'Neill, Charles Peters -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFVdw8J0ei8kcpE1VERAtf/AKCeoohZPKvVHMpMen6uA8k1V96oRwCguiDP gxTrObp5+0YIRzlsu8PcH8A= =EUcn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Nikolay Sivov <bunglehead(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Are you planning to rewrite all Staging patches, and send them upstream on your own?
Of course not, I don't think we need them all.
Pretty spectacular and self-revealing answer. -- Dmitry.
Nikolay Sivov <bunglehead(a)gmail.com> wrote:
First bits for https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34843
What is the reason of reimplementing it when wine-staging already includes full implementation with tests?
https://github.com/wine-compholio/wine-staging/blob/master/patches/gdiplus-G...
The reason is simple, to have this actually implemented in wine. The fact that it's included somewhere doesn't help with that.
When I asked you yesterday to submit it, that was your response https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34843#c12.
That doesn't mean that somebody (including you) can't take the patch and resend it, there is even a wiki article describing how to do that properly. -- Dmitry.
participants (6)
-
Dmitry Timoshkov -
Erich E. Hoover -
Henri Verbeet -
Michael Stefaniuc -
Nikolay Sivov -
Sebastian Lackner