5 ms·

> It now appears that Aditya’s patch was submitted in good faith. Citation needed. > Greg accused him of intentionally submitting bad patches. From GKH's res

> It now appears that Aditya’s patch was submitted in good faith. Citation needed. > Greg accused him of intentionally submitting bad patches. From GKH's response to Pakki's claims: 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. A few minutes with anyone with the semblance of knowledge of C can see that your submissions do NOT do anything at all, so to think that a tool created them, and then that you thought they were a valid "fix" is totally negligent on your part, not ours. You are the one at fault, it is not our job to be the test subjects of a tool you create. > That accusation was false. The accusation is that either Aditya "KNEW" the fixes he claimed to be legitimate were incorrect, or he has not a "semblance of knowledge of C" to see that his submission do NOT do anything at all, or that he was "negligent" on his part. I've seen no evidence of this accusation being false.

nuclearnice1 6y ago
> Citation needed. Scroll Up. Find https://lwn.net/Articles/854319/ https://lwn.net/Articles/854319/ point 2 Consider: Aditya is not an author on the hypocrite commits paper. Aditya admitted his “garbage” commit when made aware it was not correct. Aditya is author of other papers on static analysis. Aditya’s other commits have generally survived this bulk review. Aditya maintains his claims even as other members of UMN have explained their role in the hypocrite commits. Aditya’s commits come from a UMN address where as hypocrite commits came from gmail. It seems likely Aditya is a bad static analyst not a malicious committer. Greg’s accusations: > You, and your group, have publicly admitted to sending known-buggy patches [1] The “you” there is false. Aditya consistently denied being part of the research they has Greg so worked up. Greg also wrote: > Please stop submitting known-invalid patches. [2] The evidence above strongly suggests Aditya never did that. Greg KH has accused Aditya of submitting known buggy patches. Aditya did not do that. Greg should apologize to Aditya for the false accusation. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/YH%2FfM%2FTsbmcZzwnX@kroah.com/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/YH%2FfM%2FTsbmcZzwnX@kroah... [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/YH5%2Fi7OvsjSmqADv@kroah.com/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/YH5%2Fi7OvsjSmqADv@kroah.c...
- staticassertion 6y ago
  They're idiot cultists, they won't listen to facts.
  - pritambaral 6y ago
    Such radical generalisation isn't helping anyone. It contributes nothing but discouragement at best, and spite and bile at worst, to the conversation. Twitter is nearly a lost cause; let's not turn this place into that too. I have plainly put forth evidence and openly asked for evidence. Emotional outrage is not a fair return.
    - staticassertion 6y ago
      The evidence is all out there in the open, I've linked and quoted repeatedly throughout here, and there's a link in the header to UMN's response. The bias is so blatant, as always - the Linux community continues to refuse to hold maintainers accountable. If people can't be bothered to read the evidence I'm not going to continue to discuss this in good faith.
      - pritambaral 6y ago
        > The evidence is all out there in the open But, clearly, not everyone is reading the same things. How could they? Humans aren't a hivemind. I understand that other people can have read different things than I have, that they can have a different view of things than I do, so I present my side of the argument with the evidence that I can find. Even given the same evidence, I understand that other people can have different interpretations of them, so I present my interpretations while asking for theirs, in the hope that they're sensible people. > I've linked and quoted repeatedly throughout here Your discourse with me here has consisted solely of you calling me names (specifically, "idiot cultist") and complaining about other people. Other people that you passive-aggressively lump me into. > there's a link in the header to UMN's response. Plenty have seen and read it. I don't know what point you're trying to make by alluding to a curt announcement that can be reduced to "we've paused the research group's activities and are looking into the matter". Or perhaps you meant to point to the professor's response instead of UMN's. You and I clearly aren't reading it the same way, but I did not bring it up in our discussion and I do not want to now because I do not believe you are being sensible here. > The bias is so blatant, as always - the Linux community continues to refuse to hold maintainers accountable. Whatever their crimes are, your behaviour here has been unmitigably worse, and you refuse to hold yourself accountable. > If people can't be bothered to read the evidence I'm not going to continue to discuss this in good faith. You haven't been. But, what's worse, you've been trying to prevent others (like me and the person you replied to when you called me an "idiot cultist") from doing so as well.

nuclearnice1 6y ago

> Citation needed. Scroll Up. Find https://lwn.net/Articles/854319/ https://lwn.net/Articles/854319/ point 2 Consider: Aditya is not an author on the hypocrite commits paper. Aditya admitted his “garbage” commit when made aware it was not correct. Aditya is author of other papers on static analysis. Aditya’s other commits have generally survived this bulk review. Aditya maintains his claims even as other members of UMN have explained their role in the hypocrite commits. Aditya’s commits come from a UMN address where as hypocrite commits came from gmail. It seems likely Aditya is a bad static analyst not a malicious committer. Greg’s accusations: > You, and your group, have publicly admitted to sending known-buggy patches [1] The “you” there is false. Aditya consistently denied being part of the research they has Greg so worked up. Greg also wrote: > Please stop submitting known-invalid patches. [2] The evidence above strongly suggests Aditya never did that. Greg KH has accused Aditya of submitting known buggy patches. Aditya did not do that. Greg should apologize to Aditya for the false accusation. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/YH%2FfM%2FTsbmcZzwnX@kroah.com/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/YH%2FfM%2FTsbmcZzwnX@kroah... [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/YH5%2Fi7OvsjSmqADv@kroah.com/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/YH5%2Fi7OvsjSmqADv@kroah.c...

staticassertion 6y ago
They're idiot cultists, they won't listen to facts.
- pritambaral 6y ago
  Such radical generalisation isn't helping anyone. It contributes nothing but discouragement at best, and spite and bile at worst, to the conversation. Twitter is nearly a lost cause; let's not turn this place into that too. I have plainly put forth evidence and openly asked for evidence. Emotional outrage is not a fair return.
  - staticassertion 6y ago
    The evidence is all out there in the open, I've linked and quoted repeatedly throughout here, and there's a link in the header to UMN's response. The bias is so blatant, as always - the Linux community continues to refuse to hold maintainers accountable. If people can't be bothered to read the evidence I'm not going to continue to discuss this in good faith.
    - pritambaral 6y ago
      > The evidence is all out there in the open But, clearly, not everyone is reading the same things. How could they? Humans aren't a hivemind. I understand that other people can have read different things than I have, that they can have a different view of things than I do, so I present my side of the argument with the evidence that I can find. Even given the same evidence, I understand that other people can have different interpretations of them, so I present my interpretations while asking for theirs, in the hope that they're sensible people. > I've linked and quoted repeatedly throughout here Your discourse with me here has consisted solely of you calling me names (specifically, "idiot cultist") and complaining about other people. Other people that you passive-aggressively lump me into. > there's a link in the header to UMN's response. Plenty have seen and read it. I don't know what point you're trying to make by alluding to a curt announcement that can be reduced to "we've paused the research group's activities and are looking into the matter". Or perhaps you meant to point to the professor's response instead of UMN's. You and I clearly aren't reading it the same way, but I did not bring it up in our discussion and I do not want to now because I do not believe you are being sensible here. > The bias is so blatant, as always - the Linux community continues to refuse to hold maintainers accountable. Whatever their crimes are, your behaviour here has been unmitigably worse, and you refuse to hold yourself accountable. > If people can't be bothered to read the evidence I'm not going to continue to discuss this in good faith. You haven't been. But, what's worse, you've been trying to prevent others (like me and the person you replied to when you called me an "idiot cultist") from doing so as well.