« Return to Thread: about DataPilot
Re: about DataPilot
by Kohei Yoshida-2
::
Rate this Message:
On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 17:42 +0200, Niklas Nebel wrote:
> On 06/10/09 16:51, Michael Meeks wrote:
> > What makes you think they are being held back ? the issues around
> > DataPilot that Kohei are working on have been communicated quite clearly
> > to Sun - eg. i#101328 - how clear can it be: the comment "accepting it
> > for 3.2" from Kohei; i#100619, i#22029 both assigned to
> > Kohei, all fitting the mould of work we send up-stream.
> >
> > It seems extraordinarily short sighted, and saddening to try and
> > avoid co-ordination on this; it makes it appear that you almost relish
> > destroying other people's work by duplication, even when they are trying
> > hard to work with you - which is a highly unfortunate and unpleasant
> > position. Strangely, sad to say, this is a friction that is not normally
> > experienced when dealing with your co-workers.
> >
> > Despite your obviously offensive mail; to make it easier for IBM to
> > review the changes, I've asked Kohei to create a CWS and whack the
> > patches in there - please don't do the normal witheringly negative critique,
> > they may not be completely ready yet. FWIW, I'm always amused when I ask for
> > design review, people prefer instead to rave about commented (or not)
> > debugging fprintfs instead ;-)
>
> There is code that the IBM people want to contribute now, and code that
> you advertise as a go-oo feature but didn't contribute yet.
So, what you mean exactly by 'contribute'? I have created issues for my
work, has set the status to STARTED, and expressed my interest on
contributing. How does that not constitute as a desire to contribute?
Obviously that's not too different from the way IBM has expressed their
interest in "contributing". Besides, what's wrong with advertising
features as go-oo? IBM obviously advertises their features as features
of Symphony. How is that different? Please enlighten me.
> If you're
> changing your mind now, that's good. As I wrote: Then we can try to
> merge them (the changes). Otherwise, what else can we do but use the
> code that we can get? I am not going to delay integration of IBM's
> changes until you decide you've kept your changes to yourself long enough.
I have no mind to change here; I have always expressed interest in
contributing the DataPilot code back once the code matures & becomes in
good shape. Perhaps it is your mind that needs to change; the way you
seem to see us (or see me), in a very twisted way, and unwillingness to
communicate with us (or me, I don't care the distinction). If you had
asked me on the update, and asked me to hurry up on the integration, I
would have gladly done so as I have done so in the past when I was asked
to do it.
>
> > So - the context is that Kohei has asked, politely, and reasonably
> > asked, to co-ordinate this work so we don't waste effort here - he talks
> > of a pipeline of changes in data-pilot, of solidifying the code. And then
> > you turned him down: why all this aggressive talk of deliberate work
> > duplication ?
> >
> > If you choose to dig up the past, lets do it: sure - we remember
> > the solver, there was my code in there too; we remember your leading
> > role in destroying a volunteer's spare-time creation, your tone almost
> > sounds as if you enjoyed that. I had always assumed this appalling
> > initiative to abuse, divide and stifle the 'Open'Office.org project,
> > purely in Sun's proprietary interest, was forced by StarDivisions's
> > (visionary) senior management, rather than being cheer-lead by
> > individual Sun developers.
> >
> > Since I see almost nothing defensible about Sun's past action
> > here, I would (personally) recommend avoiding raking over it all again;
> > why don't we just get on with the technical issues around improving
> > the DataPilot implementation.
>
> For at least two years (2005 to 2007) we didn't start a solver
> component, although there was demand and the approach was sketched out,
> because I believed Kohei was going to make (and contribute) one. I don't
> want the same situation with DataPilot enhancements.
So, your mind is unfairly fixed on the past solver issue. Have you
checked my track record since then? When did I explicitly hold back my
contribution to Calc core ever since that solver incident? Please tell
me.
I'm confused.
Kohei
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
> On 06/10/09 16:51, Michael Meeks wrote:
> > What makes you think they are being held back ? the issues around
> > DataPilot that Kohei are working on have been communicated quite clearly
> > to Sun - eg. i#101328 - how clear can it be: the comment "accepting it
> > for 3.2" from Kohei; i#100619, i#22029 both assigned to
> > Kohei, all fitting the mould of work we send up-stream.
> >
> > It seems extraordinarily short sighted, and saddening to try and
> > avoid co-ordination on this; it makes it appear that you almost relish
> > destroying other people's work by duplication, even when they are trying
> > hard to work with you - which is a highly unfortunate and unpleasant
> > position. Strangely, sad to say, this is a friction that is not normally
> > experienced when dealing with your co-workers.
> >
> > Despite your obviously offensive mail; to make it easier for IBM to
> > review the changes, I've asked Kohei to create a CWS and whack the
> > patches in there - please don't do the normal witheringly negative critique,
> > they may not be completely ready yet. FWIW, I'm always amused when I ask for
> > design review, people prefer instead to rave about commented (or not)
> > debugging fprintfs instead ;-)
>
> There is code that the IBM people want to contribute now, and code that
> you advertise as a go-oo feature but didn't contribute yet.
So, what you mean exactly by 'contribute'? I have created issues for my
work, has set the status to STARTED, and expressed my interest on
contributing. How does that not constitute as a desire to contribute?
Obviously that's not too different from the way IBM has expressed their
interest in "contributing". Besides, what's wrong with advertising
features as go-oo? IBM obviously advertises their features as features
of Symphony. How is that different? Please enlighten me.
> If you're
> changing your mind now, that's good. As I wrote: Then we can try to
> merge them (the changes). Otherwise, what else can we do but use the
> code that we can get? I am not going to delay integration of IBM's
> changes until you decide you've kept your changes to yourself long enough.
I have no mind to change here; I have always expressed interest in
contributing the DataPilot code back once the code matures & becomes in
good shape. Perhaps it is your mind that needs to change; the way you
seem to see us (or see me), in a very twisted way, and unwillingness to
communicate with us (or me, I don't care the distinction). If you had
asked me on the update, and asked me to hurry up on the integration, I
would have gladly done so as I have done so in the past when I was asked
to do it.
>
> > So - the context is that Kohei has asked, politely, and reasonably
> > asked, to co-ordinate this work so we don't waste effort here - he talks
> > of a pipeline of changes in data-pilot, of solidifying the code. And then
> > you turned him down: why all this aggressive talk of deliberate work
> > duplication ?
> >
> > If you choose to dig up the past, lets do it: sure - we remember
> > the solver, there was my code in there too; we remember your leading
> > role in destroying a volunteer's spare-time creation, your tone almost
> > sounds as if you enjoyed that. I had always assumed this appalling
> > initiative to abuse, divide and stifle the 'Open'Office.org project,
> > purely in Sun's proprietary interest, was forced by StarDivisions's
> > (visionary) senior management, rather than being cheer-lead by
> > individual Sun developers.
> >
> > Since I see almost nothing defensible about Sun's past action
> > here, I would (personally) recommend avoiding raking over it all again;
> > why don't we just get on with the technical issues around improving
> > the DataPilot implementation.
>
> For at least two years (2005 to 2007) we didn't start a solver
> component, although there was demand and the approach was sketched out,
> because I believed Kohei was going to make (and contribute) one. I don't
> want the same situation with DataPilot enhancements.
So, your mind is unfairly fixed on the past solver issue. Have you
checked my track record since then? When did I explicitly hold back my
contribution to Calc core ever since that solver incident? Please tell
me.
I'm confused.
Kohei
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
« Return to Thread: about DataPilot
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
