\misconceptions about my history of involvement


#1

just now, multiple users have posted WRONG informations about me, particularly about the significance of my involvement in the project, and related things. these informations must be cleared up.

logic: „if the code was written before X started, then giving the code to X is not a contribution to X.” — this can be called contribution griefing1.

fact: if it weren't for the multi-protocol functionality, Tremulous would have died out due to the 1.1/GPP1 split by now.

1 to be defined, but not before @dGr8LookinSparky defines „project griefing”.

yeah, the license formally permits giving ~0 recognition. volt and mr. dushbag got flamed out of the Tremulous community for such, u may be next.

logic:

  • merging updates from the base repository (thus, making „scribble” repositries 2 and 3);
  • submitting more modern, richer (eg. support for protocol 71 with multi-protocol), debugged/fixed, polished feature sets (also in „scribble” 2, 3);
  • reviewing, debugging, or otherwise analyzing others' (eg. @dGr8LookinSparky's) code, and giving valuable consultancy/directions;

= nothing.

also, logic: outside of the code repository:

  • setting up test7341, contributing server operation, maintenance and QVM distribution tools;
  • (re-)teaching @dGr8LookinSparky to code in C;
  • helping a lot of people with coding tasks, and with compiling and setting up the crappy pre-alpha client;
  • describing real PROBLEMs with the GH administration and procedure protocols;
  • greatly reducing the number of idiots/abusers on the Pub;

= nothing.

WRONG. i would have still remained on VACATION(TM) even if u retrospectively banned him for multiple eternities in parallel. the VACATION(TM) was due to being pissed about ur utter display of unsuitability to be a community leader, by making slapped-on, unconsulted, bullshit decisions.

and to add to that, the said „sharing” happened only weeks after @dGr8LookinSparky already released the multi-protocol code to the public via the 1.3 pre-alpha release.

enneract could have chosen to switch, from his semi-own implementation of multi-protocol (based on the public release of the „multi-protocol Slacker's QVM”), to the pre-alpha one, but didn't, because pre-alpha was full of @blowFish's cruft. that's why enneract eventually asked me for help: to get solid multi-protocol functionality, but no bullshit. i was the right man to ask, because i would know very well which commits (again, from the pre-alpha release), r needed for multi-protocol code, and which r cruft.

WRONG. enneract has nothing to do with the reasons to keep the code secret; in fact, the non-releasing detail of the public relations plan was set half a year before enneract appeared with his requests for 1.3 code development to be open. reasons for not releasing code before the release, were published in response to requests, and the most important reason was (and this has been repeated elsewhere too), that we and the community r not ready for a half-baked code release: we would receive many requests to help regular users to set up and „bake” the half-baked shit, and the community would get the impression of incompetence of the development team. in fact, it was @dGr8LookinSparky that actually „leaked” the code by releasing it against the plan, ie. by a slapped-on, unconsulted, bullshit decision, that he has yet to explain.

he's biased and ignorant about Zittrig and Der Bunker; his claims r baseless, ill-advized, and most importantly, WRONG.

WRONG. as explained above, i didn't „leak” jack shit. also, @dGr8LookinSparky provided no sensible (defined and true) explanation to booting me. however, since the act of booting came shortly after i told him that „i helped @enneract with multi-protocol”, it is very plausibly related: it means that i helped Zittrig and Der Bunker, which @dGr8LookinSparky ever-so-apparently considers an enemy of GrangerHub/GrangerPub.

WRONG. the first, two-protocol version — for Amsterdam Unlimited, years before GrangerHub even existed — was conceived in 3 days, each consisting of 18 hours of work, which makes a total of 54 hours. however, since then, due to GrangerHub's needs, the multi-protocol functionality was upgraded and polished a lot, which took a lot more than even that time.

so u do understand the reasons for not releasing the code prematurely. then why the COCKFUCK did u just say that the reason was a political request of mine ?

yes, as i said @dGr8LookinSparky went against the plan.


Who Did What in GrangerHub's Development Team?
#2

@DevHC nobody said we wouldn't give you recognition. We will, in credits/readme/about page stuff, upon 1.3 release. But also, you didn't add any additional copyright info to the source headers... if you want something there, just say so.


#3

Related is a post I just made in a topic asking in general about who did what in GrangerHub's Development team. I have included some comments there on DevHC's original post in this topic.