On Mon, 10 May 2021 at 23:32, Ian Lance Taylor <i...@google.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2021, 9:52 AM abebeos <lazaridis.com+abeb...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Again, just heavily fascinating to see how you ignore the overall essence >> of this, which is of course directly related to gcc. >> >> (bountysource is just a secondary disaster, it all starts here, at gcc. >> > > What do you think that the GCC project has done wrong for this specific > issue? > I've described this in my message here: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-May/569913.html The summary is possibly * I identified via necessary week-long work a (shelved) patch as valid for (re)use. * The gcc project(members) simply downplayed my week-long efforts to essentially "nothing". * Issue-author, patch-author and other gcc participants kept silence when the voting-process was rigged. * (and some other things, like e.g. missing complaint-addresses/procedures which enable "wild-west" abuse of workers). See, I do hard/soft/firmware, but before that, I setup stable reproducible dev-environments (which gcc lacks, at least for avr). Then I try to validate/reuse/extend existent results. Only then, I go to implement own solutions. This is a usual process, nothing special for professionals. But here comes the bomb: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729#c55 "You have no claim in this whole effort. You just tried to copy someone else's work." What is this joke? Obviously zero understanding of basic dev-processes. Why has this person the freedom to abuse contributors on the gcc project? Is there no process within gcc to stop "circus-shows" and "wild-west-behavior"? To me it is clear that this person has no idea about higher-grade development-work: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729#c40 - And why can an anonymous coward (possibly the same person as above) rig voting processes, based on such totally unfounded assessments of my work? The very funny things is that when I started working, the patch wasn't even visible, it was forgotten: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729#c21 I get at this point "zero attribution", which translates to "zero % of the bounty". Even just for the attribution: Shame on you, gcc. In answering please do not mention anything about bounties or > Bountysource, as those have nothing to do with the GCC project. > What? The bounty is directly related to the issue. The bounty was filed/advertised by the gcc project, so the gcc project should have intervened immediately at the point where an anonymous coward rigged the voting process (aborted the vote before end of the voting period). The fact that I need to explain this is quite a tragedy. > Ian > >>
