Danny Backx wrote: >On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 20:41 +0000, Pedro Alves wrote: > > >>You've got to be kidding... Your project? >> >> > >The sentence was meant to draw your attention to the fact that you're >dealing with people here, not with slaves. People react oddly when you >make little or no agreements with them on how to cooperate, but then >slap them in the face because they don't follow the rules (which weren't >there). > > > Of course I realise that I am talking with people here. It is funny how you keep saying that the rules weren't there. I get the feeling you only read half your email...
>Of course it wasn't my project, but you *at least* gave the impression >that it was shared. > > > Of course it is shared. If it wasn't, I would never have uploaded it to berlios in the first place. I even remember saying to you privatly that it was great that we were attracting more developers. But I do think that to make it go forward, we need to be careful not to taint ourselves with MSFT code. We seriously depend in it. Else, we should just dump our headers and libs and go with the Pocket PC SDKs as cegcc 0.0.1->0.0.3 did. >After doing that, kicking me out without conversation prior to that is >not the right thing to do. > >Learn from this or you will get burned again. > > > But you know what, the thing is, in this case, your stubburness in not wanting to ask if things were right before doing it was now getting excessive. The last time I asked you to go through the mailing list, you were violent at me. So now I ended up having a knee jerk reaction. Did you notice I started posting every change to the code base through cegcc-devel, as I told you I would? Why didn't you do the same as requested? What is you big deal with code review? > >As I wrote yesterday I don't see the point in discussing. You've >terminated discussion and left no room for argument. > > > Obviously there is, since we are still talking about this. You left me no change, by making this public. As I've said, I was away, and for more time than I wanted, and with almost no connectivity. I already apologized for that in my previous mail. >But many if not all of your points have answers, or other sides. >- My wince-xcompile project may have a rather slim CVS presence but it > worked. Your cegcc didn't have a SVN presence until I uploaded the > sources for you, remember? > > ... So? The sources where available (and still are there). Svn importing was a natural step to take. >- Wiki: you failed to produce a simple way to wrap its contents into a > software distribution like an RPM file. > > So? The documentation we should be distributing should be gcc's ld's, gas's, gdb's docs, etc. These can be generated with 'make doc'. The rest of the docs, the specifics about our tools, could very well be left on a wiki, like the MinGW guys do... I've pointed you at their wiki before, (and told you that a lot of what is there applied to us too). There are a lot of things that have been said on this mailing list that could easilly be put on a wiki. >- Wiki: was and still is almost empty. Is this your idea of > documentation? It's the same thing as with rules: you don't describe > them until something gets in your way, then you get loud. > > What didn't I describe to you again? You make everyone think that we only talk through the mailing list, when you know that we discuss a lot through private mail. Sigh... >- Version numbers: I don't remember you complaining. I asked how to > work together to synchronize and create joint releases, but I got > no reply. So blame yourself. > > You asked it just a week or two ago, not before you started doing them. I never got to answering it. Besides, when I released version 0.1.0, I specifically asked you if you would package it for linux (although I had built it several times on linux, and could just upload it myself. I chose to let you be involved.). You ignored me, and continued using your scheme. Geee, why didn't you at least use a different numbering, like for instance based on date (eg:20061004 release), or whatever. *Something* that didn't conflict. >- Ask Nuno what I did to him before using him as an argument to hit me. > I don't think I forced him to do unnecessary work, nor do I think I > offended him. It's just you, Pedro. > > Please, let's keep Nuno out of this. You seem to have missed the point here. Ok, maybe this comes part from the fact that you didn't read the emails we sent you, and other part for my bad english. I didn't really wanted to say you forced him to do unnecessary work. What I really meant was that he volunteered to redo the headers based on MSDN docs, but you ignored it and went ahead committing MSFT code to our code base. The point is you ignoring other peoples work, and ignoring what I have been saying for a long time, and that you should know better: *We need MSDN pointers.* >- I asked about not reviewing patches because we have SVN at our > disposal. That allows us to create temporary branches, implement > things separately, and then merge cleanly. But you appear to not > understand that concept. > > I disagree. If you are talking about the arm-wince-cegcc renaming, you have to admit that the final result was a lot smaller than you thought it would be. Just a few configure.* file changes, and a few script tweaks. For bigger changes, of course branches are better, and I used them here myself before. But committing stuff to HEAD is different. I don't even understand how come you are against it. Didn't you ever notice how everyone posts patches for review, at the mailing lists of the projects we use? And that it works exceptionally well? I don't see anybody there complaining about it. It is pure peer review. Something quite important in the development of a toolchain. >- I never asked you to correct my mistakes. I explicitly asked you not > to, but to ask me to do it. You prefer to bully me instead. > > > Now this is what annoys me. You expect me to let you commit stuff, even with mistakes in it? That is nonsense. Why not get them corrected sooner than later? Why force everyone to live with your mistakes? >>What I was hoping for, was that you started posting patches to the >>mailing list, >>and then after a while I was going to give you SVN access again. Now you >>totally blew it. >>I am very, very sorry you made this public. >> >> > >You certainly know more about compilers and binutils than I do. But you >have a lot to learn about communication, and about people. This is not >the kind of thing you do without talking and expect to get away with. > > > You make it sound as if only I had a problem, while it is you who have been ignoring my requests. Guess who has a communications problem? Jan is right, we should not be having this conversation on a public list. Now that everyone knows that both of the CeGCC admins are bone headed, lets keep this list for technical discussions only. Agreed, please? Cheers, Pedro Alves ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Cegcc-devel mailing list Cegcc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cegcc-devel
