4 ms·

> But the motivation isn't clean and if you care more about the credit than you do about the fix then clearly you have your priorities mixed up I'd suggest not

> But the motivation isn't clean and if you care more about the credit than you do about the fix then clearly you have your priorities mixed up I'd suggest not opining on the inner motivations of strangers on the internet. It doesn't add value to this conversation, and your guesses are likely wrong due to missing important context and details.

jacquesm 3y ago
It's there for everybody to read, as well as in comments here, I'm not guessing at anything. You can't be 'robbed' of something you do not already have. And that's before we get into misrepresenting the kernel maintainers words in a way that considerably changes their meaning.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- marktucker 3y ago
  Maybe you’re not a native English speaker? “Getting robbed” can also mean not getting something you are justly deserved.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    > can also mean not getting something you are justly deserved. It can, but whether that's the case here or not is debatable and I think what we mostly see here is the OPs unfamiliarity with how LKML deals with tiny patches mailed to the security lists.
- JimDabell 3y ago
  > It's there for everybody to read Yes, it is. His motivation is very clear: > Around a year and a half ago, I’ve asked my former company for some time to work on an issue that was impacting the debugging capabilities in our project: gdbserver couldn’t debug multithreaded applications running on a PowerPC32 architecture. The connection to the gdbserver was broken and it couldn’t control the debug session anymore. This is an incredibly uncharitable description of his motivation: > If the goal is to fix something to be able to put kernel contributor on your resume
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    So, then the OP should be happy. But that's not what I'm reading, I read accusations about robbery, see words put in people's mouths that are not backed up by the evidence and a patch that misses required bits and pieces to be accredited in the first place. What they wrote in their blog is without value after changing the nature of the exchange with the kernel maintainer to make them look like a dick when nothing of the sort actually happened. It only proves that you can't believe what is in that article.
    - JimDabell 3y ago
      He did almost all the work in fixing a problem that had existed unfixed for six years. He figured out what the problem was and fixed it. He did this because it was causing problems at work. When he contributed the fix upstream the maintainer tweaked it a bit and merged it, with a bug report credit. The author did far more than simply report a bug. As he says – the bug was already reported six years ago (and apparently the actual reporter didn’t get credit for that). He figured out what the problem was and fixed it, but he didn’t get credit for that. His motivation is clear – he fixed the bug because it affected him. The fact that he’s pissed off for not getting credit for that bug fix doesn’t change that. > If the goal is to fix something to be able to put kernel contributor on your resume This quite clearly was not his goal. His goal was to fix the bug he was experiencing at work. So why are you saying otherwise?
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        > So why are you saying otherwise? Because I read the article and the exchange between the maintainer and the OP. It smacks of entitlement and shows a complete unfamiliarity with the kernel development process. Maybe that's all there is to this but to claim a kernel developer 'robbed' a first time contributor when in fact what happened is exactly what you'd expect to happen makes me wonder about the OPs motives, especially because he materially misrepresented the interaction between himself and the maintainer to make the maintainer look bad. It looks like the credits were the goal, and if they weren't then what's the fuss about?

jacquesm 3y ago

It's there for everybody to read, as well as in comments here, I'm not guessing at anything. You can't be 'robbed' of something you do not already have. And that's before we get into misrepresenting the kernel maintainers words in a way that considerably changes their meaning.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
marktucker 3y ago
Maybe you’re not a native English speaker? “Getting robbed” can also mean not getting something you are justly deserved.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  > can also mean not getting something you are justly deserved. It can, but whether that's the case here or not is debatable and I think what we mostly see here is the OPs unfamiliarity with how LKML deals with tiny patches mailed to the security lists.
JimDabell 3y ago
> It's there for everybody to read Yes, it is. His motivation is very clear: > Around a year and a half ago, I’ve asked my former company for some time to work on an issue that was impacting the debugging capabilities in our project: gdbserver couldn’t debug multithreaded applications running on a PowerPC32 architecture. The connection to the gdbserver was broken and it couldn’t control the debug session anymore. This is an incredibly uncharitable description of his motivation: > If the goal is to fix something to be able to put kernel contributor on your resume
- jacquesm 3y ago
  So, then the OP should be happy. But that's not what I'm reading, I read accusations about robbery, see words put in people's mouths that are not backed up by the evidence and a patch that misses required bits and pieces to be accredited in the first place. What they wrote in their blog is without value after changing the nature of the exchange with the kernel maintainer to make them look like a dick when nothing of the sort actually happened. It only proves that you can't believe what is in that article.
  - JimDabell 3y ago
    He did almost all the work in fixing a problem that had existed unfixed for six years. He figured out what the problem was and fixed it. He did this because it was causing problems at work. When he contributed the fix upstream the maintainer tweaked it a bit and merged it, with a bug report credit. The author did far more than simply report a bug. As he says – the bug was already reported six years ago (and apparently the actual reporter didn’t get credit for that). He figured out what the problem was and fixed it, but he didn’t get credit for that. His motivation is clear – he fixed the bug because it affected him. The fact that he’s pissed off for not getting credit for that bug fix doesn’t change that. > If the goal is to fix something to be able to put kernel contributor on your resume This quite clearly was not his goal. His goal was to fix the bug he was experiencing at work. So why are you saying otherwise?
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      > So why are you saying otherwise? Because I read the article and the exchange between the maintainer and the OP. It smacks of entitlement and shows a complete unfamiliarity with the kernel development process. Maybe that's all there is to this but to claim a kernel developer 'robbed' a first time contributor when in fact what happened is exactly what you'd expect to happen makes me wonder about the OPs motives, especially because he materially misrepresented the interaction between himself and the maintainer to make the maintainer look bad. It looks like the credits were the goal, and if they weren't then what's the fuss about?