Lionel Debroux (./13) :
refusing to upgrade kernel support invoking the ideological "kernels suck !" pretext

The actual reason (and the one I've always given) is that using PreOs-only features makes programs crash when run on older kernels, and there's no reliable way to check for PreOs or a derivative (there are at least 4 different identifiers: PreOs, PedroM, TitaniK, Iceberg, and there may be more in the future, and there are also version numbers to check for most stuff, which are different for each of those).

No matter the advent of KDE 4.3 (which is what 4.0, or at best 4.1, should have been if KDE had used a sane versioning scheme), forcing people to install the huge non-native kdewin bloat just in order to use a tiny IDE with few distinctive features, questionable capabilities and well-known deficiencies, remains a questionable idea. At the very least, it should definitely not be a priority task (something you gave the impression of, at the time).

It's a priority task because it allows adding features to the IDE without having to code them twice (of which once in a proprietary language I don't even have a compiler for). Code duplication is bad, as you say yourself.

Though we tackled several issues and closed the corresponding tickets, the GCC4TI Trac ticket list is a testimony to the range and depth of open issues on TIGCC...

Most of them are non-issues like the use of bash in the install scripts (which is really a feature). Some are actual bugs, but rarely encountered in practice.

See above and in many other topics. We've been able to cooperate with dozens of persons in the community over the years, but we haven't been able to cooperate with you, due to your lack of respect towards our ideas and our persons...You like people as long as they agree with you 100%, but your relationships with other people deteriorate if the agreement rate falls.

Quite funnily, that's about what I think of you… You only honor existing project structures when it suits you, you don't hesitate to putsch your way into projects you don't like the leader of (see what you did to TIGCC (where at least you had to change the name) and LPG (where you're usurpating the original project's name, helped by Julien and Romain who decided to support you rather than their existing codevelopers (Tyler and me) based on nationality)).

By rejecting many of our ideas, you didn't even let us a chance
to make and send most patches (because they wouldn't have gotten in anyway).

Patches for actual bugs would definitely have been accepted, unless the "fix" is broken and causes worse issues. On one hand, you claim to tackle actual issues in TIGCC, on the other hand, you say you forked it because you don't like my decisions, now which is it?

THAT
is a misrepresentation of the facts: as already written elsewhere, and acknowledged by Romain, I never asked for commit rights.

But you surely didn't complain. You also didn't offer to step down when I told you I don't trust you and I refuse to work with you. But I blame Julien and Romain most of all, they should have asked me and Tyler before granting you access.

In case you hadn't noticed, in the past few weeks, I've spent a lot of time on RSA key factoring and the rest. A community adventure of which you've been totally missing.

A completely useless task as there have been ways to bypass the whole signature process, and also a legal risk.

As one of the co-maintainers at the time, you were Cc on the patches, so you're also to blame if an incomplete change went in.

Well, Romain expeditedly committed your patch and rushed the release at a time where I was extremely busy with other stuff (university and/or Fedora stuff, probably both) and had little time to review it. I thought he had and made the mistake to trust him on that, he obviously didn't. (Code quality has never been his strength, I used to always proofread his commits and I caught several mistakes that way.)

As one of the co-maintainers for a long time, you're also to blame for the code duplication (that's the root cause of the problem - no code duplication, no way to miss the modification of one of the copies) I didn't detect.

That "duplicate code" has been written by Romain before I even joined the project, he's the one to blame there. That said, it's not really duplicate code, it's just 2 pieces of code who happen to use the same structure. It's you who changed the structure without even grepping for it in the whole source code.

Do you really think they had any need for asking the most biased and predictable person they know of ?

I was the #2 developer, it was extremely impolite to tell me only after the fact that they accepted a new developer.

auto-proclamation of maintainership

For me, it was completely logical that I was and I didn't even conceive anything else. The succession rules in Free Software projects are clear, if the #1 developer leaves, the #2 developer becomes the #1 developer. So it wasn't so much auto-proclamation as just a statement of what I thought to be undisputed facts.

"I am the maintainer, I do what I want"

That's also how things work in the real world.

you were going to lock down the traditionally open-minded LPG software the way you locked down TIGCC.

WTF?! I actually opened up TIGCC, it was me who created the CVS repository! Before, patches were exchanged by private e-mail and only releases were public. ld-tigcc wasn't even publicly available at all before TIGCC 0.95 Beta 1. For 0.96, I did all the development in the open.

If for you, "openness" means accepting any and all patches, then I have sad news for you: no project is "open" in that way. Even Wikipedia reverts changes which are obviously incorrect.

This was totally unacceptable for the sake of the community - and an utter disrespect for Julien and Romain, who have spent lots of time and energy into raising those projects to what they are. They didn't want to see their effort misappropriated by a well-known sabotager.

Then they surely shouldn't have given you access.

After sabotaging TIGCC, you did the same to the LPG and you dare blaming me for it.

LOL, I was sure that you were going to blurt out that obscenity

The truth is now obscene?