[asterisk-dev] Corydon76 Issue Deleted: 0006925, 04-28-06 17:49 Corydon76 Issue Deleted: 0006920

[Denis Smirnov]

On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 10:41:27PM -0300, Joshua Colp wrote:

JC> Of course you'll have access to the bug tracker. Just because a few of your
JC> bugs were deleted does not mean you're going to lose access.

I think, that _deleting_ (not closing) bugs is _very_ bad anyway.

>> Do you really? Are you really open?
JC> Yes, we are. Your suggestions though have to make sense and people have to
JC> agree with them. It may not seem like it but we actually do discuss bugs in
JC> realtime on IRC if it is brought up. A few of your bugs for example were
JC> brought up and everyone made their point. Some of your patches were
JC> accepted, some were not. It's the way it goes.

IRC is very time consuming.

I have time for creating and reviewing asterisk patches.
I have time for discussing them in bug tracker and maillists.
I hasn't time for discussing them in any realtime communication method.

I suuppport now greater then 50 patches localy. It's like fork today.
I can help team with 

>> Corydon is known to be particularly "active" in the negative sense on
>> the bugtracker conflicting as much as he can.
>> 
>> I know dozens of people who had conflicts with him Tilghman. Can you
>> confirm it, Mr. Lesher?
JC> Corydon may come across as negative but he is a very smart individual who is
JC> looking out for the best for Asterisk. We all are.

Ok, he very smart. But last my conflict with him was because he doens't
want to read fseek(3), and see that he doesn't know how it works. I don't
think, that it's smart to close bug, when reporter has knowledge how this
works, and bug marshall doesn't.

Ok. I'm stupid lamer. But I know how works some parts, and know how to fix
it. I have time for do this work. And I _would_ do this work anyway.  If
Digium whant to use my work -- use it! If don't want -- say "We doesn't
need your contributions", and conflict ends. I create my own fork, and my
and my clients would be happy.

E.g. come time ago I disclaim my patches for ztdummy, that really improve
it quality. This patch used by many peoples, that give it from bugtracker,
and all my clients. They are happy with it. _Your_ clients complain about
MeetMe problems without zaptel hardware.

My clients now has product with more quality, than your clients. Why, if I
give you this patches?

Now I write patch in team/oej/codecnegotiation branch. It's very simple
API _addon_, that doesn't break anything, and can be easily added before
full freeze. But this really can make future changes in codec negotiation
(like 4825) easier.

But it nor reviewed or commited.

Why?

Why I and many others need to spend time for flame?

JC> While more people do have SVN commit access though, we are still having
JC> problems with the bug tracker. As it is there are very few bug marshals left
JC> to handle things. It's a HUGE job and while people make the best effort they
JC> can, it's still futile because you get burned out so fast and it takes so
JC> much of your time. Eventually everyone just needs a break and their
JC> participation fades.

Why you doesn't get help from community? Some peoples can take part of
this work.

JC> This isn't true exactly, some people who contribute to OpenPBX.org do also
JC> contribute back to Asterisk.

 - OpenPBX now _have_ T.38 support, and we hasn't;
 - OpenPBX use automake, but we doesn't;
 - OpenPBX move some parts to libopenpbx, that simplify automatic finding
   for unresolved symbols, but we doesn't;

JC> I'm going to be honest with you, and everyone out there. The Asterisk
JC> community is a very diverse group of people. We are all aiming for the same
JC> thing though, to make Asterisk bigger and better. In order to do this we
JC> must learn to cooperate, help each other and come to the realization that
JC> while you may post a patch that seems perfectly logical and great - it may
JC> not appear to others to be that way. By posting a bug you're opening
JC> yourself up to others to come in and take a look and decide whether it is
JC> really valid or not. If the answer is no, then you must learn to accept and
JC> deal with that.

But who has rights to accept or reject patches? _Any_ bug marshall?

E.g. Russel commit many of my patches. Often, if patch have simple bugs,
he silently fix this bugs and commit my patch with fix. If he doesn't
accept patch, he always say _why_. And I hasn't any conflicts with him.
Today he revert one of my changes, and I know _why_. And I know that he is
right.

Why Corydon76 can't do his work without conflicting with other developers?

Why he close bugs without comment?

Why you say, that developing open, if my bugs can be closed without
comment _why_?

I think that today logging API in asterisk is a crap. Casper try to fix
it. Instead of helping him for choose right way, his bugs was closed. Why?

Bug id 4825 is needed for any big installation. It live in bugtracker
about a year, and was marked as [post 1.2]. Why it doesn't integrated?
Many peoples use it. It save processor time, it helps with scalability.
It fix some transcoding problems (because it transcode when _reading_
frame, not _writing_, and this fix some races).

Why noone know "why this patch not commited?".

-- 
JID: ds at im.seiros.ru
ICQ: 58417635 (please, use jabber, if you can)

http://freesource.info/