Reading another mail from xhb list: > 1. From day 1, the xHarbour Developers page, included this:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- You may review the complete list of the Harbour Developers on SourceForge at > http://sourceforge.net/project/memberlist.php?group_id=33773 and on the > Harbour Project web site at http://www.harbour-project.org/crew.htm. We > should all appreciate their immense contributions, and appreciate the SCOPE > of this project. Minor correction: The *crew list* is only linked since me initiating a private e-mail conversation with Ron to get this link added to this page. There wasn't a link to Harbour page before. My name also missing, and I didn't even want to mention it, instead I felt linking to our crew page solves to problem adequately for everyone (and a bit more personally than sf.net member list). And to the credit of Ron, he added it. This was in 2005 (confirmed from archives.org). Anyway, thanks for adding it. [ The link is now broken after our page changes, a .htm needs to be changed to .html in the link: http://www.harbour-project.org/crew.html ] Vailton, if you read this, maybe we could readd the .htm alias/redirect to fix this on our side. Brgds, Viktor On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Viktor Szakáts <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Przemek, > Yes, I saw your message. I've now read a few replies. > > Ron is probably referring to the hb_retc_buffer() and friends situation, > which was developed by me in my local repository without looking into > any xhb source or employing methods used there (you have to take my > word for it, or look up commits or committed code from this period, or > look into actual implementations). Now, Ron is complaining that the two > APIs aren't compatible. Well, exactly, because my intent wasn't to > replicate *anything* present in xhb, (first off because I've never looked > into > the implementation, or even the scope of the feature), just to implement > a good idea in Harbour the best way I could. BTW, this happened after > the split and it took me about 5 years to look into xhb source tree the > first time. > > The only connection to Ron and xhb is that I've read the Harbour list > and saw the function name hb_retc[len]Adopt() in one of the messages > (on 2002. Jan 23) which sparked the idea of implementing these new API > functions in Harbour, without ever knowing more than these two names, > the idea is quite simple and logical, and ideas cannot be copyrighted. > > So, even this example of not giving credit is unfounded, and there isn't > any other example in the whole life of Harbour anybody could pull. > > See these two commits for comparison: > Harbour: > 2002-01-30 09:30 UTC+0100 Antonio Linares <[email protected]> > xhb / ChangeLog.013: > 2001-12-29 17:16 UTC-0800 Ron Pinkas <[email protected]> > > Brgds, > Viktor > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Przemyslaw Czerpak <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Fri, 24 Apr 2009, Szak�ts Viktor wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> [...] >> > If you have any opinion on this, please add it here, before doing such >> > action it'd be also nice to hear some xhb opinions. >> >> Below is a message I sent few hours before your one to xHarbour >> developer list. I didn't know that you plan to write such message. >> >> best regards, >> Przemek >> >> >> ----- Forwarded message from Przemyslaw Czerpak <[email protected]> ----- >> From: Przemyslaw Czerpak <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [xHarbour-developers] 2009-04-23 16:25 UTC+0100 Miguel Angel >> Marchuet <[email protected]> >> To: Xharbour-Developers List <[email protected]> >> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:16:52 +0200 >> >> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Miguel Angel Marchuet wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> > 2009-04-23 16:25 UTC+0100 Miguel Angel Marchuet < >> [email protected]> >> > * include\dbinfo.ch >> > * include\hbapi.h >> > * include\hbrddbmc.h >> > * include\hbrddcdx.h >> > * include\hbrdddbf.h >> > * include\hbrddnsx.h >> > * include\hbsxfunc.h >> > * include\std.ch >> > * source\codepage\cppl852.c >> > * source\rdd\bmdbfcdx\bmdbfcdx1.c >> > * source\rdd\dbf1.c >> > * source\rdd\dbfcdx\dbfcdx1.c >> > * source\rdd\dbfnsx\dbfnsx1.c >> > * source\rtl\file.c >> > * source\rtl\valtype.c >> > * source\vm\itemapi.c >> > + Added internal item type TIMESTAMP, the union of TIMESTAMP + DATE >> => DATETIME. >> > Please review is possible it needs some change more, but test by >> the moment run all ok. >> > + Added capabilities of index over field type DATETIME (T) and >> TIMESTAMP (@) (it will be need test). >> > only for nsx and cdx index types. >> > * simplified code and minor adjusts. >> > * Changed ( ( LPDBFDATA ) pRDD->lpvCargo ) by DBFNODE_DATA( pRDD ), >> to do more readable code. >> > * source\rtl\filesys.c >> > + Added partial support to OSCodePage in function hb_fsNameConv. >> > * source\rtl\spfiles.c >> > + added hb_spFileExists( BYTE * pFilename, BYTE * pRetPath ) called >> from rdds. >> > * simplified code and minor adjusts. >> > * Used hb_setGetDefault() instead of hb_set.HB_SET_DEFAULT, to >> respect access to static variables >> > from DLL. >> [...] >> >> most of above modifications is direct COPY and PAST of Harbour source code >> files modified to compile with xHarbour header files. >> As I can see in the ChangeLog it's not the 1-st time when you are not >> leaving any information about the source of your commits when in practice >> nearly each of them was based on code borrowed from Harbour. >> I hope that you will update all your ChangeLog entries and will remember >> about it in the future. >> >> best regards, >> Przemek >> >> ps. I think that you should discuss such modifications with xHarbour >> developers before commit. Harbour uses different logic for timestamp >> items. It has different arithmetic and relational operators behavior >> in HVM and native RDDs were updated to respect it. You ported to >> xHarbour >> only RDD part what is technical nonsense because now the RDD results of >> some operations like seek or scope positioning can give incompatible to >> HVM results, f.e. this code can show "corrupted index" for ascending >> index on timestamp value: >> seek( dDate ) >> if ordKeyVal() < dDate >> ? "corrupted index" >> endif >> If you want to introduce it to xHarbour then you should 1-st agree >> the behavior in the whole code and modifications in HVM/RTL. Probably >> you will need Walter help here. >> >> ----- End forwarded message ----- >> _______________________________________________ >> Harbour mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour >> > >
_______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
