27 Jan
2011
27 Jan
'11
8:38 p.m.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [LAU] [LAD] OpenOctaveMidi2 (OOM2) beta release
From: Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora(a)gmail.com>
To: Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com>
Cc: LAU Mail List <linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org>rg>, Linux Audio
Developers <Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org>
Date: 01/27/2011 11:26 AM
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Paul Davis wrote:
Thanks for the
clarification.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 9:39 AM, alex stone
wrote:
Hi Paul,
Let me shed some light from the opposite side.
I was one of the developers of the "existing codebase" [1]. Actually,
I joined the project formally about 3 months ago and I believe I made
a significant contribution in porting it to Qt4. The way I joined to
the project was traditional: sent a couple useful patches so that
people can get to know me, and after a couple rounds I got commit
rights. From my experience with open source projects, this is the way
things evolve. (I sent patches to ardour too in the past, you folks
have been friendly all the time. I am pretty sure same thing would
have happened if I contributed more frequently.)
OOM folks took a different approach. Originally, we granted them an
SVN branch and we were working under the same umbrella. They put
really hard work in their branch, and I admired most of what they did.
The plan was to merge their new features into the trunk. So we asked
for patches for individual features. This never came from them.
Instead they wanted us to grab everything (or a subset) as is. Our
team did not have the resources to take the diff of each individual
file to filter out each separate feature, and we simply didn't want to
accept *everything* as is. Thus, we proposed them to fork. This is
purely due to differences in the workflow and creativity. Deep in the basement of the OpenOctaveProject,
the team have been
working hard, to bring OpenOctaveMidi into the modern age. From the
new interface, to the workflow features, OOM2 is the result of a great
deal of hard work, and thought. In our Project journey towards a great
Linux Audio pipeline, OOM2 represents the next important step.
I think it would be
a little more respectful if you notified this
crowd precisely which *existing* codebase you "put a blowtorch to". i
already know the answer, but i think it would better to hear it from
you guys. altering the indentation and global search-and-replace of
the project name does not constitute much of a blowtorch.
That said, I believe the original codebase deserved a
little more
credit than what is there in the bottom corner of the AUTHORS file.
Moreover, when they forked off, they _kindly_ asked us to not backport
some of the changes they made (mostly appearance related). While I do
not have any intention of using their look, I found this a little odd.
You are borrowing tens of thousands of lines of code from a project,
don't give them credit in your project webpage, and tell them not to
use your little contribution in their original codebase. There is
something morally wrong here.
As for not using our look, you are free to the style
sheet I created for
you but change the colors was all I was asking. You should communicate
these things directly to me instead of out here in the lions den :)
As for more attribution, what would you like. I have no issues with
giving you props where you need it. So what do you need?
You know there seems to be this idea that we are coming out there to
destroy someones project. You said it yourself that we code fast and
hard. The reason for this is that we simply need the software. When we
were dealing with Rosegarden Micheal McIntyre could not stop swearing at
us so we forked. He felt we were invading and told us he refused to let
us take over. Oh well :)
You know I never wanted to develop audio software, I have much bigger
fish to fry. It is just my wife's pipeline is so big that the current
software was caving in. I tried to get help from the coders, but there
is never much of that to go around. So I took matters into my own hands.
We are not like Ardour asking for money all the time. We are doing this
to write music. If people (Chris Cannam) and others feel they need more
attribution, then that part is really easy to fix.
I suspect there is much more to this puzzle than attribution. I suspect
we rocked the boat just a bit too much and too fast.
Well..... it is only going to get worse if that is the case. I need much
more to finish my project with my wife. We have very big plans. This
software is such a little part of our lives, but we do need it.
Anyhow. I have been up for days coding and need some sleep.
I hope you all enjoy our features. After all they are much better than
anything in Linux for orchestral scoring. We really outdid ourselves! :)
Enjoy!
Anyhow, I wish them good luck with their project.
Best,
Orcan
[1] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/2010-December/075007…
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
--
Christopher Cherrett
ccherrett(a)openoctave.org
http://www.openoctave.org
27 Jan
27 Jan
8:47 p.m.
New subject: [LAU] OpenOctaveMidi2 (OOM2) beta release
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Christopher Cherrett
<ccherrett(a)openoctave.org> wrote:
I suspect there is much more to this puzzle than
attribution. I suspect we
rocked the boat just a bit too much and too fast.
No, there really isn't.(At least not in as far as the original post
that started this was concerned)
Not sure why you keep insisting there is, but there isn't. It was a
simple request, easily answered, and was turned into something much
more than it really should have been.
You also seem to think that the Ardour project is disgruntled with
you. Not really. In fact many of us were discussing this project
yesterday and today both on IRC, and aside from the attribution issue,
it was well received in general and more than a fair amount of well
wishing. There are things that confuse us, such as why fork an
existing project when you were asked to put something in Mantis,
instead of writing a patch for the single feature or expanding it, but
that is your choice, and is part of the freedom of open source
obviously and I think everyone gets that. The primary detractor from
it was simply the attribution issue and clarifying that.
At any rate, I think that has been expressed, wish you well on your
project and I may play around with it myself before long as well.
Thanks for the contribution to the community.
Seablade
8:50 p.m.
New subject: [LAU] OpenOctaveMidi2 (OOM2) beta release
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [LAD] [LAU] OpenOctaveMidi2 (OOM2) beta release
From: Thomas Vecchione <seablaede(a)gmail.com>
To: Christopher Cherrett <ccherrett(a)openoctave.org>
Cc: Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora(a)gmail.com>om>, LAU Mail List
<linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org>rg>, Linux Audio Developers
<Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org>
Date: 01/27/2011 12:47 PM
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Christopher Cherrett
<ccherrett(a)openoctave.org> wrote:
Paul Wrote:
while i admire what you are trying to do with OOM/OOM2, the forking of
an existing, well-known project, without any attribution whatsoever,
or even acknowledgement of the fork, is troubling to say the least. if
you had done this with ardour, i'd be raising bloody hell about it.
there's absolutely nothing wrong with a fork (other than potentially
being a waste of developer resources), but i do think that not even
*naming* the well-known project that OOM2 is based on is close to
morally problematic, and perhaps worse.
End Quote:
Seems a bit more than a question, seems there is a few insinuations.
Again please enjoy your new tools in open octave midi :)
Thanks!
--
Christopher Cherrett
ccherrett(a)openoctave.org
http://www.openoctave.org
I suspect there is much more to this puzzle than
attribution. I suspect we
rocked the boat just a bit too much and too fast.
No, there really isn't.(At least not in as far as the original post
that started this was concerned)
Not sure why you keep insisting there is, but there isn't. It was a
simple request, easily answered, and was turned into something much
more than it really should have been.
You also seem to think that the Ardour project is disgruntled with
you. Not really. In fact many of us were discussing this project
yesterday and today both on IRC, and aside from the attribution issue,
it was well received in general and more than a fair amount of well
wishing. There are things that confuse us, such as why fork an
existing project when you were asked to put something in Mantis,
instead of writing a patch for the single feature or expanding it, but
that is your choice, and is part of the freedom of open source
obviously and I think everyone gets that. The primary detractor from
it was simply the attribution issue and clarifying that.
At any rate, I think that has been expressed, wish you well on your
project and I may play around with it myself before long as well.
Thanks for the contribution to the community.
Seablade
8:55 p.m.
New subject: [LAU] OpenOctaveMidi2 (OOM2) beta release
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Christopher Cherrett
<ccherrett(a)openoctave.org> wrote:
Seems a bit more than a question, seems there is a few
insinuations.
Not really. There is the statement that not attributing is not
morally correct, and as I said some people do disagree with the choice
to fork rather than commit to(And as I said it is pretty well
understood that is your right given the license), but I don't know
what insinuations beyond that you are referring to as they really
aren't there and I am fairly sure you are reading more into it than
was ever intended by the original author. The second thing would
never really have been an issue, it was the attribution issue that
started all this and that is where it should have ended as well.
Seablade
9:29 p.m.
New subject: [LAU] OpenOctaveMidi2 (OOM2) beta release
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Christopher Cherrett
<ccherrett(a)openoctave.org> wrote:
Seems a bit more than a question, seems there is a few
insinuations.
whatever insinuations are there are entirely your own imagination at
work. to repeat: i think (and said) that its (quite deeply) wrong to
take an existing FLOSS project, fork it, and not make it clear that
was the origin of a "new" project. however, reasonable people can
agree to disagree on whether that's really true, and it certainly
isn't against any licenses or anything like that. i was more just
puzzled why you chose to not refer to Muse when announcing OOM2, and
perhaps shaded my question too darkly.
as i said previously, i wish OOM2 well, and will look forward to
seeing what you guys come up with.
9:35 p.m.
New subject: [LAU] OpenOctaveMidi2 (OOM2) beta release
On 27 January 2011 19:38, Christopher Cherrett <ccherrett(a)openoctave.org> wrote:
I suspect there is much more to this puzzle than
attribution.
No, really not. Attribution is incredibly important to many open
source developers, partly because there are so few tangible benefits
involved with open source work, and partly because the force of the
licenses we use (particularly the GPL) depends on being confident
about the ownership of copyright. It matters a great deal to people
if you take someone's work and represent it as your own.
And it's a pity, because a situation like this or the earlier
Rosegarden fork ought to be beneficial to everybody. With Rosegarden,
your project's focus was different from that of any of our core
developers and, although we like to keep people happy, we really
weren't able to spend the time to do the things you wanted. Forking
ensured that people who liked things "your way" had somewhere else to
go, which made things better for them and simpler for us.
In light of that, it's a great shame that the resulting new project
should then give us such a sour impression -- and the same thing is
true again here. Your casual attitude to other people's work means
that I and probably many others would avoid working with you again,
but that negative feeling could have been avoided with such a tiny
amount of thought and even less work.
Chris
9:48 p.m.
New subject: [LAU] OpenOctaveMidi2 (OOM2) beta release
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [LAU] [LAD] OpenOctaveMidi2 (OOM2) beta release
From: Chris Cannam <cannam(a)all-day-breakfast.com>
To: Christopher Cherrett <ccherrett(a)openoctave.org>
Cc: Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora(a)gmail.com>om>, LAU Mail List
<linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org>rg>, Linux Audio Developers
<Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org>
Date: 01/27/2011 01:35 PM
On 27 January 2011 19:38, Christopher
Cherrett<ccherrett(a)openoctave.org> wrote:
I could not care less if we slapped your name all over the new code we
write. I do not have any of the same concerns you have.
Want the code? I will sign over every line of code I wrote to you. I
care nothing for the code, only what it can do.
You would not fit into our camp well. We move too fast for most people.
Thanks!
--
Christopher Cherrett
ccherrett(a)openoctave.org
http://www.openoctave.org
I suspect there is much more to this puzzle than
attribution.
No, really not. Attribution is incredibly important to many open
source developers, partly because there are so few tangible benefits
involved with open source work, and partly because the force of the
licenses we use (particularly the GPL) depends on being confident
about the ownership of copyright. It matters a great deal to people
if you take someone's work and represent it as your own.
And it's a pity, because a situation like this or the earlier
Rosegarden fork ought to be beneficial to everybody. With Rosegarden,
your project's focus was different from that of any of our core
developers and, although we like to keep people happy, we really
weren't able to spend the time to do the things you wanted. Forking
ensured that people who liked things "your way" had somewhere else to
go, which made things better for them and simpler for us.
In light of that, it's a great shame that the resulting new project
should then give us such a sour impression -- and the same thing is
true again here. Your casual attitude to other people's work means
that I and probably many others would avoid working with you again,
but that negative feeling could have been avoided with such a tiny
amount of thought and even less work.
Chris 
28 Jan
28 Jan
1:50 p.m.
New subject: [LAU] OpenOctaveMidi2 (OOM2) beta release
On Thursday 27 January 2011 21.48.01 Christopher Cherrett wrote:
....
I could not care less if we slapped your name all over
the new code we
write. I do not have any of the same concerns you have.
Want the code? I will sign over every line of code I wrote to you. I
care nothing for the code, only what it can do.
You would not fit into our camp well. We move too fast for most people.
You - the OOM - are moving too fast for you own moral compass (if you have
any), if you are only partially that good, then you should have started a
project from scratch.
Your unwillingness to give other people fair creds for their hard work is
amazing, and you've been in this business and environment long enough to
understand that creds is something that one gives. It's unbelievable that you
use so much time here to shit on the Ardour, Rosegarden and MuSE people in
stead of just saying "sorry our mistake, we have worked so much so we did not
think about it, but we will fix it".
You can at least just stop to try to move the focus from what the thing is
about: -To do some crediting.
Now, you just use energy to tell the world how bad the Ardour, Rosegarden and
MuSE people and projects are. They all wish you good luck, they are not your
enemies.
I wish you god luck with OOM and that you can take a deep breath, calm down
and play nice with the Open Source community again.
Jostein
3 p.m.
New subject: [LAU] OpenOctaveMidi2 (OOM2) beta release
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Jostein Chr. Andersen <jostein(a)vait.se> wrote:
On Thursday 27 January 2011 21.48.01 Christopher
Cherrett wrote:
....
This is the last i'm going to add on this.
Firstly, i personally regret that i didn't include Werner's name
immediately as attribution. He, along with half a dozen other devs in
the community get my continued respect and admiration, not only for
the quality of their work, their immense skills, and just as
importantly, their willingness to interact in a user/dev relationship
and discussion of equals in our own fields, with mutual agreement on
functions and features, or a friendly and respectful challenge
structure where the use case has to been profoundly proven, and if
necessary, discarded without malice, or derisory sarcasm, and
contempt.
To be absolutely clear.
The current MusE team, for whom i have no hard feellings at all,
decided we were going too fast, with too many changes, and they were
uncomfortable with the the modifications we wanted to add. They told
us to fork the project and leave. We did that. And as is normal
practise, as so many of you have firmly stated, that's opensource in
action.
Had we had a friendly reminder from those in the "community" we'd
missed out the attributions, we would have been fine with that. But
instead, the "team" came out the blocks with their omnipotent
judgement that we'd transgressed, and were evil scum. (paraphrasing)
Contrast that with the raw contempt, derision, and mocking dismissal
of others who are willing to have a good laugh at testers, however
clumsy they may be, and poke fun at the idea that users and devs can
interact in a prosperous partnership for both. I've personally tested
for at least 3 projects, day and night, providing feedback to the
devs, at their request, only to be dismissed out of hand when i've
turned up with reports, observations, etc...
Then there's the swearing and insults when suggestions are made to
improve workflow. Whether they're accepted or not, it seems that for
some devs, making these suggestions is akin to telling them they're
failing in some way, or the idea that improvements could be made to
their app is an insult. I've personally endured hate mail, a raft of
swearing and aggresive suggestion to more or less "go away", mockery,
and outright dismissal out of hand from those devs who assume they
know better than anyone what they think users want, and are
contemptuous in their dismissal of anything else. That's up to them,
but eventually those alienated users go away, with the impression this
is hostile environment. some will just disappear, and others will seek
to find another solution.
That's fine, and those devs who seem to enjoy themselves in the Ivory
tower have the right to treat people as they want.
In the last 3 years, there are a handful of devs for whom I have the
greatest of respect, and will continue to do so, based on a decent and
intelligent user /dev relationship. They've NEVER uttered a harsh
word, or spoken with any form of contempt towards what are sometimes
"dumb user questions".
I'm tired of the one way relationship with those who are enthusiastic
to cling to their programs, dismissing out of hand, in the fear of
some idea of losing something if they change it, or modify it, or, and
this isn't a rare event, dismiss out of hand constructive and well
presented use cases, because they don't see any value in their little
world, or more appropriately, comfort zone.
To be absolutely clear.
I'm an altruist when it comes to OpenSource. I WANT to see devs
getting credit for their work with users, and i will help in that
process if i can. I bring many years of user experience on the shop
floor, so to speak, and i'm more than willing to share that knowledge,
as i have done for 3 years since i arrive in Linux, to see the WHOLE
community go forward, and gain the respect they deserve.
But i will focus my efforts with those devs who are least willing to
listen, and for whom i have a great deal of respect, and if the
answer's no, then it happens out of mutual respect, and not the other
variety of "the answer's no, i'm not listening, chortle,chortle."
I haven't named those devs who i respect and admire, because as this
latest fiasco shows, they may suffer for some sort of perceived
alliance with me or anyone in the OOP team, or those other user and
devs in the community who have already drifted away for the same
reasons i am, and code quietly and efficiently in the shadows.
And just for the record.
I will not take that contempt, derision, and clumsy insinuation from
those who assume an self-exalted self realising omnipotent position of
authority. Nor would any of you in the same position.
I've already had the start of hate mail and judgemental condemnations
from the acolytes, but that's a given in any group or people. Enjoy
yourselves if that's what rocks your boat.
The OpenOctaveProject remains committed to Opensource tools and option
for both users, and devs, alike. We will continue to follow this path,
and do so in the hope that we can build a base from which a stable
workflow pipeline is a wonderful asset for the Linux Audio Community,
as a whole, and the perception of the community, and it's reputation,
is enhanced as a result.
We will do this in co-operation with ANYONE who's interested in
bringing together a great working environment for musicians and
composers of many types, including those of us who write orchestral,
radio, and film music for a living. If an app needs some love to
enhance it's USERS toolset, in conjunction with other apps, as part of
a consistent and reliable base that users can enjoy, and be
comfortable with, then we'll help, and offer design suggestions. We've
ALWAYS done that. Some devs have accepted or rejected those
suggestions with intelligent discussion and some enthusiasm, and
others have done exactly and often belligerently, the opposite.
This is the last i'll post on this particular subject, as it's more or
less wasted on those who won't consider another perspective, and
frankly seem to enjoy the...."scandal" of it all.
My respect for those devs who are willing to interact without
contempt, derision, mockery, dismissal, swearing, paranoia, etc,
remains undimmed. They know who i'm referring to, and my door is
always open for another perspective, and possibly more clumsy testing,
on User workflow and design, whether it's added or not. I have enjoyed
many decent discussions with those skilled, intelligent, and decent
people, and learned much along the way as they generously share their
own opinion, and ideas. I sincerely hope that continues.
Once again, i regret not adding Werner's attribution, and i offer my
unreserved apologies to you, Werner, if you feel offended by this, or
slighted in any way. It wasn't deliberate, or in any way an attempt to
commandeer your excellent work without recognition. If OOP continues
to grow at the same rate, and experienced users keep jumping on board,
the recognition of your work will reach an ever widening audience, as
it will for all those devs with whom we have a decent partnership,
want to see succeed in a wider user base, and be recognised for their
outstanding work going into the future.
To the rest, who gleefully jumped in with both feet with their
condemnations, judgements, and sometimes sly, sometimes deceitful, but
always relentless character assassination, I don't care. I'm not
interested. If that's the sum total of your existence, i feel pity for
you.
Enjoy yourselves, i'm back to work, and the next step forward.
Alex.
I could not care less if we slapped your name all
over the new code we
write. I do not have any of the same concerns you have.
Want the code? I will sign over every line of code I wrote to you. I
care nothing for the code, only what it can do.
You would not fit into our camp well. We move too fast for most people.
You - the OOM - are moving too fast for you own moral compass (if you have
any), if you are only partially that good, then you should have started a
project from scratch.
Your unwillingness to give other people fair creds for their hard work is
amazing, and you've been in this business and environment long enough to
understand that creds is something that one gives. It's unbelievable that you
use so much time here to shit on the Ardour, Rosegarden and MuSE people in
stead of just saying "sorry our mistake, we have worked so much so we did not
think about it, but we will fix it".
You can at least just stop to try to move the focus from what the thing is
about: -To do some crediting.
Now, you just use energy to tell the world how bad the Ardour, Rosegarden and
MuSE people and projects are. They all wish you good luck, they are not your
enemies.
I wish you god luck with OOM and that you can take a deep breath, calm down
and play nice with the Open Source community again.
Jostein
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
3:57 p.m.
New subject: [LAU] OpenOctaveMidi2 (OOM2) beta release
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 9:00 AM, alex stone <compose59(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Contrast that with the raw contempt, derision, and
mocking dismissal
of others who are willing to have a good laugh at testers, however
clumsy they may be, and poke fun at the idea that users and devs can
interact in a prosperous partnership for both. I've personally tested
for at least 3 projects, day and night, providing feedback to the
devs, at their request, only to be dismissed out of hand when i've
turned up with reports, observations, etc...
That must be why the Ardour3 pre-release notes say:
"Many thanks are also due to Alex Stone and Dan MacDonald for their
beyond-the-call-of-duty help testing MIDI and their numerous
suggestions on workflow, UI and more."
Ardour3 shows a heavy influence from your suggestions, even though its
certainly true that not all of the ones that we liked have been
implemented and that a few of your ideas clashed with other aspects of
Ardour's design and so are unlikely to show up (though its not
impossible).
So that's 1 out of the "at least 3 projects" ... a case where your
input had a major role in shaping things, and where we're actually and
publically indebted to you for your insights and suggestions. I have
no idea what the response from the other projects was. I was actually
pretty mystified when you dropped out of #ardour, but assumed it was
because you decided that ardour3 would either never or not-soon-enough
have the workflow you wanted for OOM and/or were too busy with OOM.
27 Jan
27 Jan
9:57 p.m.
New subject: [LAU] OpenOctaveMidi2 (OOM2) beta release
On Thursday, January 27, 2011 03:43:40 pm Chris Cannam did opine:
+1000
This very well said, Chris. I personally do not have a dog in this fight,
but had that been some of my now elderly code, I think I would be justified
in calling this new effort out, as has now been more than amply done by
others here, and the point _has_ been made. Unfortunately, I am probably
doing little except contributing to the roar of disapproval by the crowd.:(
To Alex and your crew:
It is likely that this contretemps will not fully settle until such time as
the proper attributions have been restored and a new release containing
those attributions has been made.
Defensive attitudes do not cut it, performance does.
--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
<http://tinyurl.com/ddg5bz>
A sine curve goes off to infinity, or at least the end of the blackboard.
-- Prof. Steiner
On 27 January 2011 19:38, Christopher Cherrett
<ccherrett(a)openoctave.org>
wrote:
I suspect
there is much more to this puzzle than attribution.
No, really not. Attribution is incredibly important to many open
source developers, partly because there are so few tangible benefits
involved with open source work, and partly because the force of the
licenses we use (particularly the GPL) depends on being confident
about the ownership of copyright. It matters a great deal to people
if you take someone's work and represent it as your own.
And it's a pity, because a situation like this or the earlier
Rosegarden fork ought to be beneficial to everybody. With Rosegarden,
your project's focus was different from that of any of our core
developers and, although we like to keep people happy, we really
weren't able to spend the time to do the things you wanted. Forking
ensured that people who liked things "your way" had somewhere else to
go, which made things better for them and simpler for us.
In light of that, it's a great shame that the resulting new project
should then give us such a sour impression -- and the same thing is
true again here. Your casual attitude to other people's work means
that I and probably many others would avoid working with you again,
but that negative feeling could have been avoided with such a tiny
amount of thought and even less work.
Chris
9:59 p.m.
New subject: [LAU] OpenOctaveMidi2 (OOM2) beta release
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [LAD] [LAU] OpenOctaveMidi2 (OOM2) beta release
From: gene heskett <gheskett(a)wdtv.com>
To: linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
Date: 01/27/2011 01:57 PM
On Thursday, January 27, 2011 03:43:40 pm Chris Cannam
did opine:
+1000
This very well said, Chris. I personally do not have a dog in this fight,
but had that been some of my now elderly code, I think I would be justified
in calling this new effort out, as has now been more than amply done by
others here, and the point _has_ been made. Unfortunately, I am probably
doing little except contributing to the roar of disapproval by the crowd.:(
To Alex and your crew:
It is likely that this contretemps will not fully settle until such time as
the proper attributions have been restored and a new release containing
those attributions has been made.
Defensive attitudes do not cut it, performance does.
A new release? What exactly do you expect?
--
Christopher Cherrett
ccherrett(a)openoctave.org
http://www.openoctave.org
On 27 January 2011 19:38, Christopher
Cherrett<ccherrett(a)openoctave.org>
wrote:
I suspect
there is much more to this puzzle than attribution.
No, really not. Attribution is
incredibly important to many open
source developers, partly because there are so few tangible benefits
involved with open source work, and partly because the force of the
licenses we use (particularly the GPL) depends on being confident
about the ownership of copyright. It matters a great deal to people
if you take someone's work and represent it as your own.
And it's a pity, because a situation like this or the earlier
Rosegarden fork ought to be beneficial to everybody. With Rosegarden,
your project's focus was different from that of any of our core
developers and, although we like to keep people happy, we really
weren't able to spend the time to do the things you wanted. Forking
ensured that people who liked things "your way" had somewhere else to
go, which made things better for them and simpler for us.
In light of that, it's a great shame that the resulting new project
should then give us such a sour impression -- and the same thing is
true again here. Your casual attitude to other people's work means
that I and probably many others would avoid working with you again,
but that negative feeling could have been avoided with such a tiny
amount of thought and even less work.
Chris
10:07 p.m.
New subject: [LAU] OpenOctaveMidi2 (OOM2) beta release
On Thursday, January 27, 2011 04:02:20 pm Christopher Cherrett did opine:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [LAD] [LAU] OpenOctaveMidi2 (OOM2) beta release
From: gene heskett <gheskett(a)wdtv.com>
To: linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
Date: 01/27/2011 01:57 PM
The correct attributions, possibly with a sentence or 2 describing how the
fork came to be in the README in download able package. What, 10 minutes
work plus the repacking?
--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
<http://tinyurl.com/ddg5bz>
Ten persons who speak make more noise than ten thousand who are silent.
-- Napoleon I
On Thursday, January 27, 2011 03:43:40 pm Chris
Cannam did opine:
+1000
This very well said, Chris. I personally do not have a dog in this
fight, but had that been some of my now elderly code, I think I would
be justified in calling this new effort out, as has now been more
than amply done by others here, and the point _has_ been made.
Unfortunately, I am probably doing little except contributing to the
roar of disapproval by the crowd.:(
To Alex and your crew:
It is likely that this contretemps will not fully settle until such
time as the proper attributions have been restored and a new release
containing those attributions has been made.
Defensive attitudes do not cut it, performance does.
A new release? What exactly do you expect? On 27 January 2011 19:38, Christopher
Cherrett<ccherrett(a)openoctave.org>
wrote:
I suspect
there is much more to this puzzle than attribution.
No, really not. Attribution is incredibly important to many open
source developers, partly because there are so few tangible benefits
involved with open source work, and partly because the force of the
licenses we use (particularly the GPL) depends on being confident
about the ownership of copyright. It matters a great deal to people
if you take someone's work and represent it as your own.
And it's a pity, because a situation like this or the earlier
Rosegarden fork ought to be beneficial to everybody. With
Rosegarden, your project's focus was different from that of any of
our core developers and, although we like to keep people happy, we
really weren't able to spend the time to do the things you wanted.
Forking ensured that people who liked things "your way" had
somewhere else to go, which made things better for them and simpler
for us.
In light of that, it's a great shame that the resulting new project
should then give us such a sour impression -- and the same thing is
true again here. Your casual attitude to other people's work means
that I and probably many others would avoid working with you again,
but that negative feeling could have been avoided with such a tiny
amount of thought and even less work.
Chris
10:09 p.m.
New subject: [LAU] OpenOctaveMidi2 (OOM2) beta release
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [LAD] [LAU] OpenOctaveMidi2 (OOM2) beta release
From: gene heskett <gheskett(a)wdtv.com>
To: linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
Date: 01/27/2011 02:07 PM
On Thursday, January 27, 2011 04:02:20 pm Christopher
Cherrett did opine:
Reasonable.
We just have git so less than 10 minutes :)
--
Christopher Cherrett
ccherrett(a)openoctave.org
http://www.openoctave.org
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [LAD] [LAU] OpenOctaveMidi2 (OOM2) beta release
From: gene heskett<gheskett(a)wdtv.com>
To: linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
Date: 01/27/2011 01:57 PM
The correct attributions, possibly with a sentence or 2 describing
how the
fork came to be in the README in download able package. What, 10 minutes
work plus the repacking?
On Thursday, January 27, 2011 03:43:40 pm Chris
Cannam did opine:
A new release? What exactly
do you expect? On 27 January 2011 19:38, Christopher
Cherrett<ccherrett(a)openoctave.org>
wrote:
> I suspect there is much more to this puzzle
than attribution.
No, really not. Attribution is incredibly important to many open
source developers, partly because there are so few tangible benefits
involved with open source work, and partly because the force of the
licenses we use (particularly the GPL) depends on being confident
about the ownership of copyright. It matters a great deal to people
if you take someone's work and represent it as your own.
And it's a pity, because a situation like this or the earlier
Rosegarden fork ought to be beneficial to everybody. With
Rosegarden, your project's focus was different from that of any of
our core developers and, although we like to keep people happy, we
really weren't able to spend the time to do the things you wanted.
Forking ensured that people who liked things "your way" had
somewhere else to go, which made things better for them and simpler
for us.
In light of that, it's a great shame that the resulting new project
should then give us such a sour impression -- and the same thing is
true again here. Your casual attitude to other people's work means
that I and probably many others would avoid working with you again,
but that negative feeling could have been avoided with such a tiny
amount of thought and even less work.
Chris
+1000
This very well said, Chris. I personally do not have a dog in this
fight, but had that been some of my now elderly code, I think I would
be justified in calling this new effort out, as has now been more
than amply done by others here, and the point _has_ been made.
Unfortunately, I am probably doing little except contributing to the
roar of disapproval by the crowd.:(
To Alex and your crew:
It is likely that this contretemps will not fully settle until such
time as the proper attributions have been restored and a new release
containing those attributions has been made.
Defensive attitudes do not cut it, performance does.
10:24 p.m.
New subject: [LAU] OpenOctaveMidi2 (OOM2) beta release
On Thursday, January 27, 2011 04:23:53 pm Christopher Cherrett did opine:
Reasonable.
We just have git so less than 10 minutes :)
Chuckle.
--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
<http://tinyurl.com/ddg5bz>
Mountain Dew and doughnuts... because breakfast is the most important meal
of the day.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [LAD] [LAU] OpenOctaveMidi2 (OOM2) beta release
From: gene heskett <gheskett(a)wdtv.com>
To: linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
Date: 01/27/2011 02:07 PM
> On Thursday, January 27, 2011 04:02:20 pm Christopher Cherrett did
opine:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [LAD] [LAU] OpenOctaveMidi2 (OOM2) beta release
From: gene heskett<gheskett(a)wdtv.com>
To: linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
Date: 01/27/2011 01:57 PM
The correct attributions, possibly with a sentence or 2 describing how
the fork came to be in the README in download able package. What, 10
minutes work plus the repacking? On Thursday, January 27, 2011 03:43:40 pm Chris
Cannam did opine:
> On 27 January 2011 19:38, Christopher
> Cherrett<ccherrett(a)openoctave.org>
wrote:
>> I suspect there is much more to this puzzle than attribution.
>
> No, really not. Attribution is incredibly important to many open
> source developers, partly because there are so few tangible
> benefits involved with open source work, and partly because the
> force of the licenses we use (particularly the GPL) depends on
> being confident about the ownership of copyright. It matters a
> great deal to people if you take someone's work and represent it
> as your own.
>
> And it's a pity, because a situation like this or the earlier
> Rosegarden fork ought to be beneficial to everybody. With
> Rosegarden, your project's focus was different from that of any of
> our core developers and, although we like to keep people happy, we
> really weren't able to spend the time to do the things you wanted.
> Forking ensured that people who liked things "your way" had
> somewhere else to go, which made things better for them and simpler
> for us.
>
> In light of that, it's a great shame that the resulting new project
> should then give us such a sour impression -- and the same thing is
> true again here. Your casual attitude to other people's work means
> that I and probably many others would avoid working with you again,
> but that negative feeling could have been avoided with such a tiny
> amount of thought and even less work.
>
>
> Chris
+1000
This very well said, Chris. I personally do not have a dog in this
fight, but had that been some of my now elderly code, I think I
would be justified in calling this new effort out, as has now been
more than amply done by others here, and the point _has_ been made.
Unfortunately, I am probably doing little except contributing to
the roar of disapproval by the crowd.:(
To Alex and your crew:
It is likely that this contretemps will not fully settle until such
time as the proper attributions have been restored and a new release
containing those attributions has been made.
Defensive attitudes do not cut it, performance does.
A new release? What exactly do you expect? 
10:51 p.m.
New subject: [LAU] OpenOctaveMidi2 (OOM2) beta release
On 1/27/11, Christopher Cherrett wrote:
We are not like Ardour asking for money all the time.
So much for groin-level kicks. You were approached in a civilized way.
Paying back with something like this is really low style.
I suspect there is much more to this puzzle than
attribution. I suspect
we rocked the boat just a bit too much and too fast.
No, really not. Atrribution is very important. The whole DVCS thing
immensively helped there. Being able to be *automagically* quoted in
the log as developer made a lot of difference, and social coding
(Github, BitBucket etc.) made a lot of difference too, because it's
all about attribution (as well as being easy to fork, improve and send
merge request).
Yep, I personally knew that OOM2 was based on MusE2 even before
compiling and running, but this is because being curious is my job,
and reading the commit log at github was so easy. But you know, I
don't expect everyone to be a journalist. Do you?
Having said that, I do see potential in the project as well and I'll
be tracking its progress with interest.
Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
28 Jan
28 Jan
4:37 p.m.
New subject: [LAU] OpenOctaveMidi2 (OOM2) beta release
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:38:39PM -0700, Christopher Cherrett wrote:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [LAU] [LAD] OpenOctaveMidi2 (OOM2) beta release
From: Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora(a)gmail.com>
To: Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com>
Cc: LAU Mail List <linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org>rg>, Linux
Audio Developers <Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org>
Date: 01/27/2011 11:26 AM
this was not a clarification.
i looked at your repo.
its under no circumstances mergeable.
you say your moving too fast.
your not tidying things up.
this is going to come down on you later.
you really need to keep your history clean.
take a bit of time. use git rebase -i
before you push stuff upstream.
(or at least before you merge it into the master branch)
this makes me sad.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Paul Davis
wrote:
Thanks for the
clarification. On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 9:39 AM, alex stone
wrote:
Hi Paul,
Let me shed some light from the opposite side.
I was one of the developers of the "existing codebase" [1]. Actually,
I joined the project formally about 3 months ago and I believe I made
a significant contribution in porting it to Qt4. The way I joined to
the project was traditional: sent a couple useful patches so that
people can get to know me, and after a couple rounds I got commit
rights. From my experience with open source projects, this is the way
things evolve. (I sent patches to ardour too in the past, you folks
have been friendly all the time. I am pretty sure same thing would
have happened if I contributed more frequently.)
OOM folks took a different approach. Originally, we granted them an
SVN branch and we were working under the same umbrella. They put
really hard work in their branch, and I admired most of what they did.
The plan was to merge their new features into the trunk. So we asked
for patches for individual features. This never came from them.
Instead they wanted us to grab everything (or a subset) as is. Our
team did not have the resources to take the diff of each individual
file to filter out each separate feature, and we simply didn't want to
accept *everything* as is. Thus, we proposed them to fork. This is
purely due to differences in the workflow and creativity. Deep in the basement of the OpenOctaveProject, the
team have been
working hard, to bring OpenOctaveMidi into the modern age. From the
new interface, to the workflow features, OOM2 is the result of a great
deal of hard work, and thought. In our Project journey towards a great
Linux Audio pipeline, OOM2 represents the next important step.
I think it would be a
little more respectful if you notified this
crowd precisely which *existing* codebase you "put a blowtorch to". i
already know the answer, but i think it would better to hear it from
you guys. altering the indentation and global search-and-replace of
the project name does not constitute much of a blowtorch.
>Anyhow, I wish them good luck with their project.
thats what theyll need :S
--
torben Hohn
29 Jan
29 Jan
10:01 p.m.
New subject: OT - git rebase - was [LAU] OpenOctaveMidi2 (OOM2) beta release
On 01/28/2011 04:37 PM, torbenh wrote:
you really need to keep your history clean.
take a bit of time. use git rebase -i
before you push stuff upstream.
(or at least before you merge it into the master branch)
this makes me sad.
Hi Torben,
Was that meant as sarcasm (kill the git hitory) or seriously - allow
upsteam to cherry-pick easily?
I rarely use rebase and only on local topic branches that have never
been pushed to a public repo. It changes the history and will cause
problems to anyone who has pulled that branch before.
Since you are a git guru, could you please elaborate?
TIA,
robin
10:04 p.m.
New subject: OT - git rebase - was [LAU] OpenOctaveMidi2 (OOM2) beta release
On 01/29/2011 10:01 PM, Robin Gareus wrote:
On 01/28/2011 04:37 PM, torbenh wrote:
answering [part of] my own question, "git guru" was the key:
http://gitguru.com/2009/02/03/rebase-v-merge-in-git/
"Rebases are how changes should pass from the top of hierarchy downwards
and merges are how they flow back upwards."
Is that what you were alluding to?
robin
you really need to keep your history clean.
take a bit of time. use git rebase -i
before you push stuff upstream.
(or at least before you merge it into the master branch)
this makes me sad.
Hi Torben,
Was that meant as sarcasm (kill the git hitory) or seriously - allow
upsteam to cherry-pick easily?
I rarely use rebase and only on local topic branches that have never
been pushed to a public repo. It changes the history and will cause
problems to anyone who has pulled that branch before.
Since you are a git guru, could you please elaborate?
31 Jan
31 Jan
11:50 a.m.
New subject: OT - git rebase - was [LAU] OpenOctaveMidi2 (OOM2) beta release
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 10:04:01PM +0100, Robin Gareus wrote:
On 01/29/2011 10:01 PM, Robin Gareus wrote:
no. i am talking about a large set of commits only marked testing.
these changes are pretty much random.
however... the resulting change, is not too big. and could just have
been squashed.
and i am talking about using rebase, before pushing things up/to master.
ccherret needed to push things, because alekz was testing them.
but somthing like this should happen on a separate branch.
On 01/28/2011 04:37 PM, torbenh wrote:
answering [part of] my own question, "git guru" was the key:
http://gitguru.com/2009/02/03/rebase-v-merge-in-git/
"Rebases are how changes should pass from the top of hierarchy downwards
and merges are how they flow back upwards."
Is that what you were alluding to? you really need to keep your history clean.
take a bit of time. use git rebase -i
before you push stuff upstream.
(or at least before you merge it into the master branch)
this makes me sad.
Hi Torben,
Was that meant as sarcasm (kill the git hitory) or seriously - allow
upsteam to cherry-pick easily?
I rarely use rebase and only on local topic branches that have never
been pushed to a public repo. It changes the history and will cause
problems to anyone who has pulled that branch before.
Since you are a git guru, could you please elaborate?
robin
--
torben Hohn
4827
days inactive
4831
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
19 comments
10 participants
participants (10)
-
alex stone -
Alexandre Prokoudine -
Chris Cannam -
Christopher Cherrett -
gene heskett -
Jostein Chr. Andersen -
Paul Davis -
Robin Gareus -
Thomas Vecchione -
torbenh