[mythtv-users] What's appropriate to use/distribute in MythTV

[Robert McNamara]

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Jean-Yves Avenard <jyavenard at gmail.com> wrote:

> I would easily argue that, in reference to the VDPAU backport, all
> bugs found in it originally existed in trunk except for one occasion.
> You couldn't switch channel within the EPG.
>

"I never created a bug!  Except that one time..."  Just because you're
unaware of the bugs you've created doesn't mean you haven't created
them.

> Well, provided you aren't in a position to commit tickets, everything
> you write here is hearsay and as you know it's not admissible...
>

Jean-Yves, have you ever noticed how I'm the only one bothers to
respond to your questions on the dev and theming lists?  You're right,
it's hearsay.  But that doesn't make it any less *accurate*.  I'm not
telling you that you're rubbing people the wrong way for my own
benefit.  For some reason, I continue to waste time trying to explain
how you might go about assuaging that ill will and seeing some
traction on patches you've written.  Each and every time, I get bitten
by you.  I'm out of patience with it.  If you don't want to fit in,
that's out of my hands, but I'll simplify your life and not try to
show you how any more.

> As for me providing a patch for my "pet project", the only one I can
> think of is the AC3 upmixer one... All the other patches have been
> made in the intention to apply anywhere...
>

Again, an instance of "That's not true, except for when it is!"

>
> Well, what about this ?
>
> Someone complains about an issue in MythTV, ask if he's running any of
> my code, if yes dismiss him.

We *do* do this.  But when we spend a fair amount of time diagnosing
the issue to see what's going on before someone thinks to ask "Are you
running that backports repository," that's time wasted.

>
>> That's fine.  It doesn't mean that you're still not bound by the rules
>> of that project when you exist within its ecosystem.  If you want to
>> provide support for your unofficial, unstable version of myth, then
>> you should set up your own forum and do it there.  Have you given even
>> a shred of thought to how you appear to people who are *not* merely
>> users of MythTV?  You have ignored *every* request that has been made
>> of you by the devs, and only continued to compound it.  Let's look at
>> some of the stuff included in your fork of MythTV:
>
> What request ?

You've been requested not to associate your backport with this
project, yet you continue to use this list as a platform from which to
espouse it.

>
>>
>> - Backport of VDPAU that you were *specifically* asked not to
>> distribute and not to associate with this project.
>
> That's not true. I was never asked not to distribute it, just not to
> associate it with the mythtv project, which I did. This disclaimer has
> always been attached to any of the vdpau backport:
>
> "Please do not bother the various mythtv mailing lists, and do not
> lodge bugs in the mythtv TRAC system."
>

And yet it seems that neither request has been heeded, as this list is
constantly used to troubleshoot your fork, and we've seen multiple
tickets about it.  Also, as previously mentioned, we see semi-regular
visitors in IRC about it.

>
>>
>> - Optional HD-PVR support - Why in God's name would you distribute
>> something that will break people's database and make a clean upgrade
>> to .22 impossible?  What upgrade path do you plan to offer those
>> people?
>
> HD-PVR support is the most common request I receive by mail, about 2 a day...
> I don't have a HD-PVR so I can't help much. But I tried to do as much
> as possible, simply compiling what's currently on the mythtv wiki:
> http://mythtv.org/wiki/Patch_myth.21-fixes_for_hdpvr_on_Ubuntu_8.10
>
> You will note that the mythtv wiki provide instruction on how to
> upgrade and the command to run... I only compiled all the patches into
> one for convenience.
>
> None of my binaries support HD-PVR.
>

You have built it in to your build system and made it as easy as you
could to add it, and you announced it here.  This is enormously bad
form.  You are *endorsing a change that will prevent an upgrade to
.22*.  Who is it you think it will fall to when .22 is out and those
people have failing DB upgrades?  So I ask you again, what upgrade
path do *you* intend to offer to those people to fix it?  The
simplicity of the fix is unrelated to the brokenness of the
implementation, so that's a moot point.

> As to breaking people's database, I guess you haven't really looked at
> the modification made on the database to add HD-PVR support, they are
> trivial, and a one-liner in mysql can remove them.
>

So will you be handling all those support requests, then?  Will you
provide a .22-JYA package that adapts the DBcheck.cpp to un-break the
breakage you've endorsed?

>
>>
>> - Various patches which have not been committed which have resulted in
>> hours of wasted troubleshooting time in IRC.
>
> As-if ...
> You chose to help them, you can only blame yourself for how you decide
> to use your time.
>
> And I just don't believe than any of my other patches that I submitted
> in trac crashed anyone's machine. period.
>

You are choosing to read selectively here.  You are including lots of
other people's patches which most definitely *have* caused real issues
for people, and on which I and others have wasted our time.  You not
believing it and it being untrue are totally unrelated.



>
>> I don't deny that people crave what you're distributing.  I know that
>> people are eager to see some of the new features to be found in trunk.
>>  Out of those 11,000 people, how many of them have Myth commit access?
>
> who cares who have myth commit access? (and you don't).. I would
> assume any mythtv developer would be running trunk, compile it
> themselves and run it from there...
> Why would they run a pre-compiled distribution.
>

It matters because neither they nor you are suited to make decisions
about what should and should not be called "stable" MythTV.  Nobody is
preventing you from distributing JYA-TV.  Just *don't* call it MythTV
and most importantly, don't delude yourself or others into believing
that it's "stable" MythTV.  That's a farce.

> My only aim has only ever be to make things easier for most. It all
> started on something I find useful for my own use... it happens to
> suit the need of many: that's just a bonus
>
>>  How many of them feel that your backports and applying of unapproved
>> patches is a fantastic idea?  How many of them read the patches that
>> are applied?  You sell your packages as though they were a stable
>> product.  They're not.  What's more, in a thread having *nothing* to
>
> I never did so... I've always had a big "work-for me" disclaimer.

Are you really going to make me go find the *numerous* posts where
someone said you needed to run trunk to use VDPAU and you responded
with something to the effect of "You can use VDPAU with the current
*stable* version" (emphasis mine)?

> Ah... I finally see the analogy...
> So mythtv user distribution list is *your* house now ...
> okay :P
>

Not my house, but at least I know how to live in it without taking a
dump on the couch and wiping myself with the curtains.

> My original comments were mainly aim at you behaving like the cop in
> the house, like those tiny fluffy dogs that bark at everything....
> And the funny bit , you're not even a developer !
>

Not having commit access and not having plenty of code in myth are two
entirely different things.  I have plenty in there, and I don't *need*
commit access to feel a certain ownership and investment in the code
that I've written.  So yes, I'm defensive when people decide the rules
are stupid or don't apply to them, because part of my reason for
writing it in the first place was because I feel an affinity for the
"uprightness" of this project.  I *like* that the devs take a strong
stance against stealing.  And when people decide to chime in about how
some rule that is designed to protect people who *do* have code in
real MythTV, I take issue with that.  I like the Myth devs, by and
large, and I don't want the words or actions of someone who hasn't
done a thing for the project to endanger them.  As always, the squeaky
wheels are the ones who stand to lose *nothing* if someone comes after
the project.

> Look, I submitted all my patches and source code to trac, in the
> spirit of open source. Now be they be committed, do I care ? why
> should I?
> Would I like them to be? of course, it would save me time in the
> future as they will never be broken again and need to be modified.
>

If you don't care, then by all means, continue with your current
infallible attitude.

>
> At the end of the day, mythtv is a hobby for everyone and it's obvious
> it's considered as such by the core developers.
>
> Now it's unfortunate that because you don't like what I say that you
> take the easy approach of me simply unsubscribing
> and "be the ecstatic at that concept"...
> Censorship is so easy to deal with things isn't it ?

So now it's censorship to ask you to take discussion that both the
myth devs and YOU (by your own admission) have stated does not belong
here elsewhere?  *You* asked your users not to clog up these lists
with discussions of your fork, why don't *you* provide them with a
place to do it?

Robert