3 ms·

In this post they say the patches come from a static analyser and they accuse the other person of slander for their criticisms > I respectfully ask you to ceas

In this post they say the patches come from a static analyser and they accuse the other person of slander for their criticisms > I respectfully ask you to cease and desist from making wild accusations that are bordering on slander. > These patches were sent as part of a new static analyzer that I wrote and it's sensitivity is obviously not great. I sent patches on the hopes to get feedback. We are not experts in the linux kernel and repeatedly making these statements is disgusting to hear. ( https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/YH%2FfM%2FTsbmcZzwnX@kroah.com/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/YH%2FfM%2FTsbmcZzwnX@kroah... ) How does that fit in with your explanation?

temp 6y ago
>I sent patches on the hopes to get feedback They did not say that they were hoping for feedback on their tool when they submitted the patch, they lied about their code doing something it does not. >How does that fit in with your explanation? It fits in the narrative of doing hypocritical changes to the project.
- jan_Inkepa 6y ago
  But lashing out when confronted after the fact? (I can't figure out how to browse to the messages that contain said purported 'slander' - maybe it is indeed terrible slander). Normally after the show is over one stops with the performance... edit: oh, ok I guess that post with the accusations was mid-performance? Not inconsistent, so, maybe (I'm still not clear what the timeline is).
jedimastert 6y ago
> (3). We send the incorrect minor patches to the Linux community through email to seek their feedback. Sounds like they knew exactly what they were doing.
op00to 6y ago
It’s a lie, that’s how it fits.
azernik 6y ago
From GKH's response, which you linked: They obviously were _NOT_ created by a static analysis tool that is of any intelligence, as they all are the result of totally different patterns, and all of which are obviously not even fixing anything at all. So what am I supposed to think here, other than that you and your group are continuing to experiment on the kernel community developers by sending such nonsense patches? When submitting patches created by a tool, everyone who does so submits them with wording like "found by tool XXX, we are not sure if this is correct or not, please advise." which is NOT what you did here at all. You were not asking for help, you were claiming that these were legitimate fixes, which you KNEW to be incorrect.

temp 6y ago

>I sent patches on the hopes to get feedback They did not say that they were hoping for feedback on their tool when they submitted the patch, they lied about their code doing something it does not. >How does that fit in with your explanation? It fits in the narrative of doing hypocritical changes to the project.

jan_Inkepa 6y ago
But lashing out when confronted after the fact? (I can't figure out how to browse to the messages that contain said purported 'slander' - maybe it is indeed terrible slander). Normally after the show is over one stops with the performance... edit: oh, ok I guess that post with the accusations was mid-performance? Not inconsistent, so, maybe (I'm still not clear what the timeline is).

jedimastert 6y ago

> (3). We send the incorrect minor patches to the Linux community through email to seek their feedback. Sounds like they knew exactly what they were doing.

op00to 6y ago

It’s a lie, that’s how it fits.

azernik 6y ago

From GKH's response, which you linked: They obviously were _NOT_ created by a static analysis tool that is of any intelligence, as they all are the result of totally different patterns, and all of which are obviously not even fixing anything at all. So what am I supposed to think here, other than that you and your group are continuing to experiment on the kernel community developers by sending such nonsense patches? When submitting patches created by a tool, everyone who does so submits them with wording like "found by tool XXX, we are not sure if this is correct or not, please advise." which is NOT what you did here at all. You were not asking for help, you were claiming that these were legitimate fixes, which you KNEW to be incorrect.