[MPlayer-cvslog] r33516 - trunk/stream/stream_cue.c

[Ivan Kalvachev]

On 5/29/11, Reimar Döffinger <Reimar.Doeffinger at gmx.de> wrote:
> On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 03:38:56PM +0300, Ivan Kalvachev wrote:
>> On 5/29/11, Reimar Döffinger <Reimar.Doeffinger at gmx.de> wrote:
>> > On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 03:11:03PM +0300, Ivan Kalvachev wrote:
>> >> On 5/29/11, Reimar Döffinger <Reimar.Doeffinger at gmx.de> wrote:
>> >> > On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 02:49:48PM +0300, Ivan Kalvachev wrote:
>> >> >> On 5/29/11, reimar <subversion at mplayerhq.hu> wrote:
>> >> >> > Author: reimar
>> >> >> > Date: Sun May 29 13:47:18 2011
>> >> >> > New Revision: 33516
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Log:
>> >> >> > Ensure 0-termination even if line does not start with FILE "
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What's wrong with you?
>> >> >> Are you doing stupid commit war?
>> >> >
>> >> > Sorry if I stepped on your toes, I just saw I few more issues and
>> >> > though it simpler to just fix them one by one rather than trying
>> >> > to analyze your all-in-one patch.
>> >> > Is that really a problem?
>> >>
>> >> This commit is 1/3 of my patch. You already committed another 1/3 of
>> >> it.
>> >> It is just obfuscated by your earlier changes.
>> >>
>> >> If you really want other developers to work on this project you need
>> >> to respect their work. Don't give me the crap that you haven't read my
>> >> patch because it is too long or complicated.
>> >
>> > No I won't, you're right.
>> > It wasn't my intention to obfuscate your contribution.
>> > While I didn't directly use your patch I had read it before
>> > and was certainly influenced by it.
>> > I was too lazy though to think about which parts to attribute and how.
>> > I am very sorry, I just didn't expect this to be such a big thing.
>> > What would be an acceptable way for you to fix this? Edit the commit
>> > messages?
>>
>> Yes, thank you. And be a lot more careful in future.
>>
>> If you wanted me to commit my patch so that you can fix the other
>> things you could have just asked me. If you can't wait, you can try to
>> find me on irc.
>
> Well, I wanted it split. And I had to understand it first.
> So I just reimplemented it.

I didn't split the patch so the user could easily test it.

> I find it really difficult to decide how to handle such a case,
> where I consider to have implemented it myself but on the other
> hand someone else has done the same thing before and I certainly
> was influenced by it.

Always mention previous works.
If you ask yourself if you should do it, that's a sign that you should.

Depending on the similarity you can use "based on", "partially based
on", "inspired by" etc.. .  IMHO "inspired" means that the patch is
yours but it have same result as the other one.
I think I've even used "reported by" or "proposed by" if I got
bugreport on irc with simple proposal how to be fixed (not even full
patch).

> And should it happen again please flame for not attributing correctly,
> because your first message gave me a very wrong idea of what you
> thought was wrong about what I did :-)

My first worry was that your commits completely broke my patch.
Committing parts of my patch only added insult to the injury.

I kind of find it hard to image that you were not aware
that you are doing something wrong.


BTW, The only portion of my patch that is not yet committed is skipping
cases 0 and 1 when bin_filename is missing.
I could do (around line 212)
 "for (i=2*!i; ..." or "for(i=i?0:2; ..."
 or
 "if ( i<= 1 && bin_filename[0] == '\0') continue;"

Do you have any preference?