[asterisk-dev] Compilation Error - $100 USD Bounty

[Philip Prindeville]

  On 7/21/10 12:03 PM, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
> On Wednesday 21 July 2010 12:19:43 Philip Prindeville wrote:
>>    On 7/21/10 9:00 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2010-07-20 at 19:44 -0600, Philip Prindeville wrote:
>>>> FYI:  Posting bounties and then not responding when people approach you
>>>> is an easy way to burn bridges when you need help in the future.
>>> Oh, so you're willing to fix build problems for a bounty?  All of the
>>> build problems you have had you put on mantis and then bring them up
>>> constantly on IRC to try and get others to fix them.  :-p
>> Well, every time I posted a bug *and* a fix, the fix was rejected because
>> it didn't fit in the grand scheme of how the build system owners wanted
>> things to evolve.
>>
>> Given that this grand scheme isn't documented anywhere that I was aware of
>> (indeed, from what I could tell, they were making it up as they went
>> along), and any patches I continued to submit would continue to be rejected
>> for reasons that I couldn't even guess in advance, I eventually stopped
>> investing the effort.
> The main interest is in ensuring that the build system works across a wide
> variety of platforms.  Your fixes, in general, tend to fix something in your
> cross-compilation environment and break it pretty much everywhere else.
> That isn't always the case, but it's been true often enough that we
> occasionally overlook a patch that is actually good for all cases.
>
> In addition, you are persistently obstinate in refusing to consider any case
> other than your own, including when I told you that your build system was
> broken; you refused to believe me or work on fixing your build system until
> I logged into your system, fixed it myself, and posted the patch on the
> bugtracker.  All for free, and no, I don't expect you to pay a bounty.
>

What you take for being "persistently obstinate" might also be explained by a failure to communicate adequately what you believe the problem to be.  You're not always particularly verbose, and you might incorrectly assume we're both starting on the same page.

In the above example that you cite, for instance, you were using definitions of "host" and "target" that autoconf uses, whereas I was using the "host" and "target" definitions that buildroot uses, since buildroot is used in a *lot* of Linux cross-compilation environments (our own included).