Markus Rechberger wrote: > I mean the mail from Helge Hafting (thread Critical > points about kernel 2.6.21 and pseudo-authorities) at the very first > beginning. > I am replying to this mail, just because someone's spreading lies all around. On the mentioned thread, what i wrote (and that was the only mail from my side): There is a saying: "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword." -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Re: Critical points about kernel 2.6.21 and pseudo-authorities Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 04:19:41 +0400 From: Manu Abraham <abraham.manu@xxxxxxxxx> To: Uwe Bugla <uwe.bugla@xxxxxx> CC: xyzzy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, mkrufky@xxxxxxxxxxx References: <20070429182209.267430@xxxxxxx> <alpine.LFD.0.98.0704291147530.9964@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070429205925.129920@xxxxxxx> <alpine.LFD.0.98.0704291412500.9964@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070429230037.95120@xxxxxxx> <1177894713.3046.5.camel@p <alpine.LFD.0.98.0704300854090.9964@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0704301458460.315@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <463674A9.9040100@xxxxxxxxx> <20070430234000.181660@xxxxxxx> Uwe Bugla wrote: > 1. You utmost personally are responsible for 4 ununsable kernels, as far as bt8xx cards are concerned: 2.6.13, 2.6.14, 2.6.15, 2.6.16! > 2. You did not even want to imply to resolve that issue by incarnating that "community and synergy principle" that linux community needs to exist at all, but you just perverted it by flaming capable people - You mean like this: -------- Original Message -------- Subject: kernel patch practice in 2.6.13-mm2 Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 16:46:35 +0200 (MEST) From: Uwe Bugla <uwe.bugla@xxxxxx> To: manu@xxxxxxxxxxx CC: js@xxxxxxxxxxx Hi, if you continue to send or sign mm-patches for Kernel 2.6.13 as a consequence of a design change I would appreciate you to stop rubbing out my name. You did that in a file called /Documentation/dvb/bt8xx.txt. My objective is understandable good documentation, even if it may sound trivial for some developpers minds. I always have in mind that there are also lots of beginners reading those documents. As I respect your work I never in my life would even dare to rub out other coauthors names. That´s why I appreciate you to respect my name and stop rubbing it out. Thanks Uwe Bugla P. S.: If you f. ex. publish a book I ain´t gonna burn it as a matter of disrespect. So have a little respect vice versa! -- Lust, ein paar Euro nebenbei zu verdienen? Ohne Kosten, ohne Risiko! Satte Provisionen für GMX Partner: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/partner ------- Original Message -------- Subject: "synchronization problems" Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:44:38 +0200 (MEST) From: Uwe Bugla <uwe.bugla@xxxxxx> To: js@xxxxxxxxxxx CC: manu@xxxxxxxxxxx Hallo Mr. Stezenbach, "You breached the protocol by not sending the patches to the maintainer or linux-dvb list. The result of this was that we had conflicting changes in CVS. I spent about 10 minutes thinking how I could merge the two, and then gave up (I had 53 other patches to prepare and I had little time left to do the job). So I didn't just remove your name, but all changes which you sent to akpm along with it. bt8xx.txt in the kernel is now in sync with the version in linuxtv.org CVS." I didn't breach any protocol, nor did I break any unwritten rule or law. I simply took the advice from Gerd Knorr that linuxtv maintainers were just moving to another place to the point of time when I sent in my first dvb-bt8xx-patch. So consequently I took the direct way to send it to akpm. Just to be sure it is really being applied without waiting 3, 4 weeks or however long. So if you continue to at least discussing with my person, please immediately stop doing that in such a bureaucratic manner. If synchronization of CVS and kernel.org only works unidirectional, and not bidirectional, then neither I, nor akpm, nor Manu or anybody else has a real problem, but you personally have one without any doubts. And if you lack time, simply delegate your job to another person. But simply stop rubbing out other peoples coauthorship and pay respect to their contributions. And the biggest joke about your personal misbehaviour is the fact that you personally cosigned at least one of my patch attempts, without dropping me a single note asking me to not bypass the linuxtv CVS maintainers. So good morning Mr. Stezenbach, I appreciate you to wake up a little bit earlier in the future! "Additionally you deleted information from bt8xx.txt which I think were useful help for debugging problems, and which were written there on purpose by the developer. So if you talk about respect, you could show some yourself by not bypassing the original authors and maintainers when sending patches." In fact I did, and I can tell you the simple reasons why. There are in fact two things that I simply cannot and will not tolerate: a. orthographic junk (examples: "bythe" or, even worse: "autodected" and "Recognise") It was ME who corrected that in the past, and it was YOU personally who reversed that, if not to say: fucked it up in the current 2.6.14-rc1. So as a consequence it is YOUR task to do your homework and apologize for that, but not MINE! b. attempts of documentation that do NOT correspond to their appropriate kernel design What do I mean with b.? 1. In Kernels 2.6.12 AND 2.6.13 the simple command "modprobe dvb-bt8xx" caused ALL OTHER modules to load automatically: cx24110, dst, dst-ci and dst-ca. Now if the kernel design forces the automatic loading of dst, dst-ca and dst-ci, every attempt of discussion about debug parameters is simply obsolete! So if I cannot load the dst module separately, how should I be able to hack in debug parameters? I know what debug parameters are for, and I deeply respect developers work, but what the hell is it all worth for if a kernel design suppresses hacking in debug parameters? 2. Moreover I am not shure in how far the parameters 0x68 and 0x71 really correspond to TwinHan cards. A closer look to CARDLIST.bttv says: card ID = 113. But perhaps I have problems to deal with hexadecimal numbers, and this would simply be my problem, not yours! 4 rules for a real good documentation: 1. understandable and transparent information for different understanding levels 2. strictly corresponding to the laws of the current kernel design 3. absolutely errorfree concerning orthographic junk 4. structured in a senseful manner (f. ex.: headliner corresponds to real contents) If an attempt of documentation lacks at least one of the four, it is simply useless to my opinion. Why aren't debug parameters part of another part of documentation, f. ex. ci.txt? Or ca.txt? The headline of dvb-bt8xx.txt goes: "How to get the Nebula, PCTV, and TwinHan DST cards working." My question: If the essence of a documentation text is how to bring up a specified card, then please what the hell has that got to do with debug parameters? Who are the addressed groups of such a text? To my opinion at least the headliner says that the following text addresses users and nobody else! So I simply never intended to bypass any developer, but I simply found out that the bt8xx-documentation simply did not correspond to the actual kernel design. In other words: Was unusable. So I decided to write a patch and simply act instead of performing endless discussions, and that's all about it! And: If you reinvent the name of cards: Do it for whatever reason, for god's sake! But: How the hell do you define to a person not convenient with all that special technical vocabulary, what the hell a BT8xx-card is? Remember the first of my 4 rules (see above!). So at least a complete list of cards conforming to that standard is necessary for transparent information: Question: Pinnacle PCTV SAT, Nebula Electronics DigiTV, TwinHan DST and clones, Avermedia of all kinds..... Is that list complete? If not, please drop me a note where I can get that complete list of cards corresponding to that standard, and I'll instantly sit down and write a patch to improve documentation. But before I even think about doing that I appreciate you to do your homework: a. readd my name (I didn't delete it, so I won't do the same job again, not for sync reasons, and not for reasons of lack of time, and not for any other reason. b. fix orthographic errors in dvb-bt8xx.txt (for the same reason mentioned in point a.) c. reconstruct my 2.6.13-structure of dvb-bt8xx.txt as far as possible d. reflect very well, whether debug parameters should not better be situated in different documentation texts (logically structured, understandable) Regards Uwe Bugla P. S.: akpm never complains about lack of time, and he is doing a very fair and good job, and, at least for him, the amount of 54 patches is simply peanuts. I love cooperation with guys like him! In other words: I respect the demand that cvs-tree and current kernel must be in sync somehow, but if the output is rubbish for several reasons and, moreover, neglects my work, there is simply no reason for any kind of respect. Because I ain't no idiot, just to say it in very simple words. So please in future avoid to blame my person for things that you personally don't get worked (synchronization or whatever kind). And would you please answer me one question: How can I be shure that my patchwork at least enters the institution akpm, if there is someone like you in between complaining for lack of time and synchronization faults? I prefer flat hierarchies (the real hidden success principle of Linux) and cooperation with akpm works very fine. So, as a matter of principle, I don't see any reason why I should prepare and send in my work three, four, five times, just because at the other end someone doesn't get his stuff synchronized or lacks time. I ain't no idiot! Ya Basta! And even if I would give in now for strategic reasons and do the same fuckin' work again, how many Stezenbach clones or whoever would come up afterwards and continue to fuck up my work in the same or just in a different way you personally did? Who do you think you are and who do you think I am? So please do your homework, and do it correct in the future, or leave that job simply to another person. OK? Any further questions, Mr. Johannes Stezenbach? -- Lust, ein paar Euro nebenbei zu verdienen? Ohne Kosten, ohne Risiko! Satte Provisionen für GMX Partner: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/partner Hallo Mr. Stezenbach, "You breached the protocol by not sending the patches to the maintainer or linux-dvb list. The result of this was that we had conflicting changes in CVS. I spent about 10 minutes thinking how I could merge the two, and then gave up (I had 53 other patches to prepare and I had little time left to do the job). So I didn't just remove your name, but all changes which you sent to akpm along with it. bt8xx.txt in the kernel is now in sync with the version in linuxtv.org CVS." I didn't breach any protocol, nor did I break any unwritten rule or law. I simply took the advice from Gerd Knorr that linuxtv maintainers were just moving to another place to the point of time when I sent in my first dvb-bt8xx-patch. So consequently I took the direct way to send it to akpm. Just to be sure it is really being applied without waiting 3, 4 weeks or however long. So if you continue to at least discussing with my person, please immediately stop doing that in such a bureaucratic manner. If synchronization of CVS and kernel.org only works unidirectional, and not bidirectional, then neither I, nor akpm, nor Manu or anybody else has a real problem, but you personally have one without any doubts. And if you lack time, simply delegate your job to another person. But simply stop rubbing out other peoples coauthorship and pay respect to their contributions. And the biggest joke about your personal misbehaviour is the fact that you personally cosigned at least one of my patch attempts, without dropping me a single note asking me to not bypass the linuxtv CVS maintainers. So good morning Mr. Stezenbach, I appreciate you to wake up a little bit earlier in the future! "Additionally you deleted information from bt8xx.txt which I think were useful help for debugging problems, and which were written there on purpose by the developer. So if you talk about respect, you could show some yourself by not bypassing the original authors and maintainers when sending patches." In fact I did, and I can tell you the simple reasons why. There are in fact two things that I simply cannot and will not tolerate: a. orthographic junk (examples: "bythe" or, even worse: "autodected" and "Recognise") It was ME who corrected that in the past, and it was YOU personally who reversed that, if not to say: fucked it up in the current 2.6.14-rc1. So as a consequence it is YOUR task to do your homework and apologize for that, but not MINE! b. attempts of documentation that do NOT correspond to their appropriate kernel design What do I mean with b.? 1. In Kernels 2.6.12 AND 2.6.13 the simple command "modprobe dvb-bt8xx" caused ALL OTHER modules to load automatically: cx24110, dst, dst-ci and dst-ca. Now if the kernel design forces the automatic loading of dst, dst-ca and dst-ci, every attempt of discussion about debug parameters is simply obsolete! So if I cannot load the dst module separately, how should I be able to hack in debug parameters? I know what debug parameters are for, and I deeply respect developers work, but what the hell is it all worth for if a kernel design suppresses hacking in debug parameters? 2. Moreover I am not shure in how far the parameters 0x68 and 0x71 really correspond to TwinHan cards. A closer look to CARDLIST.bttv says: card ID = 113. But perhaps I have problems to deal with hexadecimal numbers, and this would simply be my problem, not yours! 4 rules for a real good documentation: 1. understandable and transparent information for different understanding levels 2. strictly corresponding to the laws of the current kernel design 3. absolutely errorfree concerning orthographic junk 4. structured in a senseful manner (f. ex.: headliner corresponds to real contents) If an attempt of documentation lacks at least one of the four, it is simply useless to my opinion. Why aren't debug parameters part of another part of documentation, f. ex. ci.txt? Or ca.txt? The headline of dvb-bt8xx.txt goes: "How to get the Nebula, PCTV, and TwinHan DST cards working." My question: If the essence of a documentation text is how to bring up a specified card, then please what the hell has that got to do with debug parameters? Who are the addressed groups of such a text? To my opinion at least the headliner says that the following text addresses users and nobody else! So I simply never intended to bypass any developer, but I simply found out that the bt8xx-documentation simply did not correspond to the actual kernel design. In other words: Was unusable. So I decided to write a patch and simply act instead of performing endless discussions, and that's all about it! And: If you reinvent the name of cards: Do it for whatever reason, for god's sake! But: How the hell do you define to a person not convenient with all that special technical vocabulary, what the hell a BT8xx-card is? Remember the first of my 4 rules (see above!). So at least a complete list of cards conforming to that standard is necessary for transparent information: Question: Pinnacle PCTV SAT, Nebula Electronics DigiTV, TwinHan DST and clones, Avermedia of all kinds..... Is that list complete? If not, please drop me a note where I can get that complete list of cards corresponding to that standard, and I'll instantly sit down and write a patch to improve documentation. But before I even think about doing that I appreciate you to do your homework: a. readd my name (I didn't delete it, so I won't do the same job again, not for sync reasons, and not for reasons of lack of time, and not for any other reason. b. fix orthographic errors in dvb-bt8xx.txt (for the same reason mentioned in point a.) c. reconstruct my 2.6.13-structure of dvb-bt8xx.txt as far as possible d. reflect very well, whether debug parameters should not better be situated in different documentation texts (logically structured, understandable) Regards Uwe Bugla P. S.: akpm never complains about lack of time, and he is doing a very fair and good job, and, at least for him, the amount of 54 patches is simply peanuts. I love cooperation with guys like him! In other words: I respect the demand that cvs-tree and current kernel must be in sync somehow, but if the output is rubbish for several reasons and, moreover, neglects my work, there is simply no reason for any kind of respect. Because I ain't no idiot, just to say it in very simple words. So please in future avoid to blame my person for things that you personally don't get worked (synchronization or whatever kind). And would you please answer me one question: How can I be shure that my patchwork at least enters the institution akpm, if there is someone like you in between complaining for lack of time and synchronization faults? I prefer flat hierarchies (the real hidden success principle of Linux) and cooperation with akpm works very fine. So, as a matter of principle, I don't see any reason why I should prepare and send in my work three, four, five times, just because at the other end someone doesn't get his stuff synchronized or lacks time. I ain't no idiot! Ya Basta! And even if I would give in now for strategic reasons and do the same fuckin' work again, how many Stezenbach clones or whoever would come up afterwards and continue to fuck up my work in the same or just in a different way you personally did? Who do you think you are and who do you think I am? So please do your homework, and do it correct in the future, or leave that job simply to another person. OK? Any further questions, Mr. Johannes Stezenbach? -- Lust, ein paar Euro nebenbei zu verdienen? Ohne Kosten, ohne Risiko! Satte Provisionen für GMX Partner: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/partner _______________________________________________ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
