[mythtv-users] Disk Space Way Wrong

[Ronald Frazier]

On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 2:49 AM, Yeechang Lee <ylee at pobox.com> wrote:
>> Why, are you unable to participate while remaining civil? I'm not
>> asking anyone to kiss anyone's ass or anything, but there's no need
>> for the sort of comments I quoted above, especially when Mark really
>> didn't do anything to provoke it.
>
> I disagree. Trac exists for a reason, and using a ticket system is
> hardly unusual among F/OSS projects. That kernel development is done
> entirely by offering patches over a mailing list is irrelevant; this
> is mythtv-users (not even mythtv-dev), not LKML. Perhaps if the issue
> were some life-or-death issue its reception would have been different,
> but otherwise MythTV developers have enough work already without also
> having to manually create a ticket for a patch *which none of them
> needs*, offered by someone who explicitly refuses to and shows
> contempt for long-existing procedures.
>
> There probably isn't a single MythTV user who is able to code, knows
> how to compile, and has moved beyond the Mythbuntu system-on-a-CD
> stage, who doesn't keep a few patches of his own. As already stated on
> the list, there are many reasons why one would keep some patches
> private. I have them; in my case I release all via the bijou
> distribution that ATrpms hosts, but the fact remains that they are not
> part of the official source code. Jean-Yves has them, and does
> something similar with his Ubuntu repo. Your valuable Ceton work for
> 0.24 is another example, needless to say.
>
> But 100 (even while calling himself a "casual user")?!? Keeping 100
> patches to himself is Mark's own business, but then he really, really
> can't complain here about an issue one of them fixes.


First of all, I suggest rereading this thread starting from Marks
original post and then continuing on for the next 7 posts or so. To
summarize:
Mark says "its a bug"
Gavin says "what bug",
Mark says "I think it might have to do with symlinks"
Raymond say "Here's the code"
Mark says "There's the problem"
20 minute later, Mark replies to himself "Here's a rough fix"

Now, it should be obvious that mark wasn't sitting there hoarding his
patch for this. Yes, it seems he knew about it some time ago, as did
I. And yes he didn't report it, as neither did I. I already explained
why I didn't: it was a minor bug, didn't bother me, wasn't important
enough to interrupt what I was doing, and since it was very minor it
was quickly forgotten about by the time I was done. Maybe it was the
same thing for Mark. But I think from the posts it was clear as day
that Mark didn't know what the problem was, and it was only figured
out (and the patch created) on the spot in this thread. I think that's
a worthy contribution on his part. He participated, he found the
solution, and he posted a rough fix. And now people are bitching that
they aren't satisfied he doesn't do more? Most people don't even do
that much. Don't harass a guy because he chooses to participate only
to the level he is comfortable participating. I wouldn't be surprised
if mark stops and thinks twice the next time he thinks he might be
able to help in a thread.

So now we've got a potential patch, and we're sitting here talking
about purposely not including it. Not because it's too much work. Not
because the code in the patch is terrible. Not because it introduces
bugs. Not because it hinders performance. No, we are talking about not
including the patch simply because we can't come up with a good reason
why we shouldn't purposely continue to let myth calculate an incorrect
value in some configurations. Is this the sort of discussion that is
going to make someone MORE likely to want to step forward and
contribute?

-- 
Ron Frazier