Nikolay Sivov nsivov@codeweavers.com wrote:
Signed-off-by: Nikolay Sivov nsivov@codeweavers.com
dlls/comctl32/propsheet.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ dlls/comctl32/tests/propsheet.c | 4 ---- 2 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
And of course it's a pure coincidence that you immediately started to work on PSPCB_ADDREF/PSPCB_RELEASE once a patch for it has been added to wine-staging. I'd suggest to stop such ill-behaved practices, or at least give a credit to the source if you decided to "borrow" an idea. Or is this an indication that you just ran out of your own ideas to work on? :)
On 02.03.2017 6:13, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
Nikolay Sivov nsivov@codeweavers.com wrote:
Signed-off-by: Nikolay Sivov nsivov@codeweavers.com
dlls/comctl32/propsheet.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ dlls/comctl32/tests/propsheet.c | 4 ---- 2 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
And of course it's a pure coincidence that you immediately started to work on PSPCB_ADDREF/PSPCB_RELEASE once a patch for it has been added to wine-staging.
Why should or shouldn't it be? What does it have to do with a patch? I worked on getting another propsheet fix tracked in wine-staging in, as well as some of my own. Simply because I care about fixes getting into Wine, you - apparently not so much.
I'd suggest to stop such ill-behaved practices, or at least give a credit to the source if you decided to "borrow" an idea. Or is this an indication that you just ran out of your own ideas to work on? :)
I would gladly give a credit for it, if it worked in a first place. Since it couldn't possibly work, and behavior is well documented, I don't think it qualifies as an idea on its own.
Now, to get all the credit you can possibly get, because that's obviously is the most important thing there is, there is a way that you're well aware of.
Nikolay Sivov bunglehead@gmail.com wrote:
Signed-off-by: Nikolay Sivov nsivov@codeweavers.com
dlls/comctl32/propsheet.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ dlls/comctl32/tests/propsheet.c | 4 ---- 2 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
And of course it's a pure coincidence that you immediately started to work on PSPCB_ADDREF/PSPCB_RELEASE once a patch for it has been added to wine-staging.
Why should or shouldn't it be? What does it have to do with a patch? I worked on getting another propsheet fix tracked in wine-staging in, as well as some of my own. Simply because I care about fixes getting into Wine, you - apparently not so much.
Apparently the fact that wine-staging is an official part of the Wine project means not that much for you.
I'd suggest to stop such ill-behaved practices, or at least give a credit to the source if you decided to "borrow" an idea. Or is this an indication that you just ran out of your own ideas to work on? :)
I would gladly give a credit for it, if it worked in a first place. Since it couldn't possibly work, and behavior is well documented, I don't think it qualifies as an idea on its own.
The wine-staging patch worked well for an application it was tagetting (Process Hacker), what is an application name that it didn't work for?
Now, to get all the credit you can possibly get, because that's obviously is the most important thing there is, there is a way that you're well aware of.
I just pointed out to an ill-behaving practices you're using, and asked to either stop doing such bad things, or give a credit to the source. Since the original wine-staging patch is pretty trivial it's not a big problem in this case, but taking into account your practice to "borrow" wine-staging work it may become a real problem at some point, at least as a distorted image of the company you are working for.
P.S. Thanks for confirming that the wine-staging patch was the starting point of your work.
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 10:00 PM, Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry@baikal.ru wrote:
... I just pointed out to an ill-behaving practices you're using, and asked to either stop doing such bad things, or give a credit to the source. Since the original wine-staging patch is pretty trivial it's not a big problem in this case, but taking into account your practice to "borrow" wine-staging work it may become a real problem at some point, at least as a distorted image of the company you are working for.
P.S. Thanks for confirming that the wine-staging patch was the starting point of your work.
At the risk of exploding this further, it looks like Nikolay put together a really nice patch that has undergone far more testing than what's in staging. As we don't have a requirement on saying that a patch is "inspired" by someone else's work I don't see any reason to be so aggressive when this patch is clearly unique. So, I'm sorry your feeling left out in terms of credit, but I don't think that attacking Nikolay is a very appropriate response.
Best, Erich
"Erich E. Hoover" erich.e.hoover@wine-staging.com wrote:
I just pointed out to an ill-behaving practices you're using, and asked to either stop doing such bad things, or give a credit to the source. Since the original wine-staging patch is pretty trivial it's not a big problem in this case, but taking into account your practice to "borrow" wine-staging work it may become a real problem at some point, at least as a distorted image of the company you are working for.
P.S. Thanks for confirming that the wine-staging patch was the starting point of your work.
At the risk of exploding this further, it looks like Nikolay put together a really nice patch that has undergone far more testing than what's in staging. As we don't have a requirement on saying that a patch is "inspired" by someone else's work I don't see any reason to be so aggressive when this patch is clearly unique. So, I'm sorry your feeling left out in terms of credit, but I don't think that attacking Nikolay is a very appropriate response.
While there is no any requirement to give a credit, there are things like respect to someone who did the dirty work and spent his own personal time by investigating an issue, and prepared an inital (if not even a perfect) working solution. I have to add that it took quite a bit of time and an effort to track down what exactly was wrong with Process Hacker, and why it crashes once in a while. That said, what Nikolay is doing completely kills any motivation to do any investigation work on Wine bugs. So please don't be surprised and keep moaning on every wineconf that not that much well qualified people are interested to even look on Wine bugs, not speaking about having a peek in attempting to fix something, give full credit for that to people like Nikolay who instead of doing their own hard work by investigating bugs, try to steal a low hanging fruit by "borrowing" the work done by somebody else.
-
Dmitry Timoshkov -
Erich E. Hoover -
Nikolay Sivov