Jump to content
Kisuka

Wolfchev's Laboratory Changelog

Recommended Posts

Euphy, why did you change my name to yours on the 1.0 entry in the changelog...?

 

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rathena/rathena/dd9719de62bf0a09d7527bc9d988367ca2c675ca/npc/re/instances/WolfchevLaboratory.txt

 

Add your own line to the changelog, do not overwrite others work. If you made fixes, add a new line, as it has been done since the days of eAthena.

 

Just because we are contributing to different projects does not mean the changelog is a different changelog (only unless changes from 1 isn't applied), especially when it's the init release comment.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with, as my reply on commit comment. /heh

but I think, better send him a PM is better than make new post.

and of course, as community member, thank you for ur script. /no1

Let's rock the Lab!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted a topic to double as a kind of a public service announcement, as I've been seeing this happen more and more lately. Changelogs in scripts are being either removed, modified, or overwritten. This should not be happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  1. You're listed as the file author.
  2. Your commit is linked in the commit log.

It's the first version in rAthena, and if I had labeled it "1.1", you could not find "1.0" in our repository.

 

Most of the time we don't even bother writing credits after "1.0 Initial release" (or similar) unless it differs from the file author, or else it's just redundant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ummm no... the changelog in a script is for that script. Yes of course there may be some difference between projects if one does not include certain changes in there own copy of a script. However, the 1.0 initial release comment has NO REASON of being changed just because you cleaned up some things and changed all item constants to IDs. I author'd the script. I did the initial release into the public domain. You have no right to modified my initial release comment in my changelog.

 

You pulled the file into rAthena, and modified the script by cleaning up some things and replacing all item constants with IDs. This constitutes as a modification of the original release. As such, you should be adding onto the changelog, not modifying it. The changelog of a script does not automatically 'reset' because you've pulled it into a different project. That is not how this works. That's not even how open source development works. A script has it's own lifespan, it's own changes, spanning through different projects. You have no right to modify that changelog in a negative manner (deleting change history, changing authors, resetting).

 

TL;DR You did not create the initial release into public domain. I did. Add your own line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't understand the issue.

Let's look at the header I committed.

//===== rAthena Script =======================================
//= Wolfchev's Laboratory
//===== By: ==================================================
//= Kisuka
//===== Current Version: =====================================
//= 1.0
//===== Compatible With: =====================================
//= rAthena Project
//===== Description: =========================================
//= Defeat Wolfchev's human experimentations.
//===== Additional Comments: =================================
//= 1.0 First version, edited. [Euphy]
//============================================================
There is no indication from this that I wrote the script, and it's clear that I edited a file that you authored.

Let's look at the commit log.

Implemented Wolfchev's Laboratory instance. (credits: Hercules 1a477c4)
Again, nothing indicates that I am the file author.

The only significance of changelogs is what's in the name: to show what changed from version to version. I don't find any offensive difference between:

//===== By: ==================================================
//= Kisuka
//===== Additional Comments: =================================
//= 1.0 First version, edited. [Euphy]
//============================================================
and

//===== By: ==================================================
//= Kisuka
//===== Additional Comments: =================================
//= 1.0 First version. [Kisuka]
//= 1.1 Edited. [Euphy]
//============================================================
We can have a discussion on changelogs, if you'd like, but most of the claims you're making are unwarranted.
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said you claimed to make yourself the script author. The problem is, is that you modified the script but are claiming it to be a 1.0 release. On top of that, you are claiming the 1.0 release as being author'd by you in the changelog. The 1.0 release of this script does not have your changes. The initial release did not come from you. The argument regarding "we have no 1.0 release in this project" is invalid, since most this project's scripts don't have an initial release here either, those releases came from eAthena.

 

In short, you don't just change a version history log because your project doesn't have those releases. Welcome to open source development. Leave my commit history alone, add your own line.

 

When I pull your clean ups and fixes into Hercules I intend to add a 1.0.1 line to the file with YOUR NAME. Please do me the common courtesy of leaving the initial release comment, author'd by it's original author, me, here in rAthena.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Kisuka here. In open source software development the procedure works that way. The lifespan of a script is taken into consideration and edits are given a new version number, depending on the importance of that new modified version to the new script. There have been no copyright violation in any sense, authorship was fully respected, but I believe there would be no problem (and it's good practice and etiquette) to add a new version different from the 1.0. The fact is a different project shouldn't be a reason not to do so.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Kisuka here. In open source software development the procedure works that way. The lifespan of a script is taken into consideration and edits are given a new version number, depending on the importance of that new modified version to the new script. There have been no copyright violation in any sense, authorship was fully respected, but I believe there would be no problem (and it's good practice and etiquette) to add a new version different from the 1.0. The fact is a different project shouldn't be a reason not to do so.

 

Thank You. I'm glad someone understands it :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Euphy but the release is not linked: https://github.com/HerculesWS/Hercules/commit/1a477c4a628decb330b8083bbd4625ffae26c709

The works from hercules is never linked so please don't say that... A link is a link and it's not just a (credits: Hercules 1a477c4)

Edited by michieru
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It slipped my mind earlier, but I'd also like to point out that eAthena's SVN history is preserved in rAthena's repository, furthering my point that if anything, the "additional comments" exist to provide accessible file history.

Having received comments from a few other users that this is not an issue, I'm going to close this thread. In any case, thank you for your contributions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.