abebeos via Gcc-patches schrieb:
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.
* You postet a patch to gcc-patches@.
* You did not answer any questions re. that patch.
* You did not address any of the issues of the patch, not even coding rules.
* You wrote that you "not touch even whitespace".
* And then you PLONK-ed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-December/561762.html
* To concerns about future problems with the patch you basically replied
"mess left behind by the patch is no issue, community folks will happily
fix them."
Thus, refusing to integrate that patch was 100% correct from the
technical point.
* You were told at several occasions by different people that
substantial contributions > 10 LOC need a Copyright Assignment.
* You were told that GCC mailing list policy is to use real name. You
refused that, asserting "me don't need that".
Thus, refusing to integrate that patch was 100% correct from the legal
point.
* Getting you $$$ by integrating a patch (of which you did not
understand a single line), or being rude and calling people bullies,
abusers and fascists will get you nowhere. You are spamming technical
PRs and lists with your poisoned language, but you did not fool anyone.
Thus, refusing to integrate that patch was 100% correct from the moral
point.
That bounty was awarded to 100% to Senthil, and 100% rightly so. From
the technical view, from the legal view, from the moral view. He wrote
100% of the patch, he understands it, he knows how to address future issues.
Johann
