Author Topic: What are Github commits?  (Read 5837 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Charles deleted his account.  Oh my !  Oh well Charles, I hope you grow a thicker skin.  If you'd been in Dan's shoes you would have gotten it 10 times worse this past year than me being cranky.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
I guess we are at an impasse. There is really no point in continuing the convo. I'm truly sorry gamey that you have such a negative opinion of me. It doesn't change the reality that Invictus raised millions of dollars in a way that had no accountability attached (by their own admission), the founder who remained has spent all the funds raised (by their own admission), and Bitshares 1.0 still hasn't shipped. At this point Ethereum may have a stable release prior to the Bitshares client. At what point is there a problem? At what point do changes need to be made?

But I guess it's easier to criticize me than take a cold hard look at what has happened over the last year.

Cheers

I agree multiple things were a mistake and I agree with you on many points but my list is still distinctly different from yours.  I have specific gripes and they've all been mentioned elsewhere.  A person can throw about all sorts of solutions after the fact and sound like they would have done better.  Perhaps they would have, perhaps not.

I would just like you to be honest in your assessment.  4 million, yet at the end of the year that 4 million was worth half as much.  Yet lets never bring up how the volatility of BTC hurt the project more than anything and keep harping on the 4 million figure.  It is stuff like this that makes me have a negative opinion of your input.  Sometimes I think you write very useful posts, like your original post in this thread.  However that just ended up being the inevitable lead up to taking shots at Dan's leadership.

Personally I sort of wish you had stuck around and these problems never started.  I suspect BitShares would have had a more solid fanbase if you had stayed on the project.  You seem to be very good at making connections etc.

edit - LOL good catch on quoting Dan.  I dunno, I went to AGS explorer and it said about 5300 BTC.  At $300 per BTC that isn't near 4 million. 
« Last Edit: January 10, 2015, 07:51:52 am by gamey »
I speak for myself and only myself.

charleshoskinson

  • Guest
I guess we are at an impasse. There is really no point in continuing the convo. I'm truly sorry gamey that you have such a negative opinion of me. It doesn't change the reality that Invictus raised millions of dollars in a way that had no accountability attached (by their own admission [1]), the founder who remained has spent all the funds raised (by their own admission [2]), and Bitshares 1.0 still hasn't shipped. At this point Ethereum may have a stable release prior to the Bitshares client. At what point is there a problem? At what point do changes need to be made?

But I guess it's easier to criticize me than take a cold hard look at what has happened over the last year.

Cheers

[1] -> "...AngelShares are an abstract notion, are non-transferable, and do not represent a legal contract amongst Invictus and those who send a donation. The worth of owning AngelShares is derived totally from the social contract enforced by voluntary actions of these who participate in the market place." http://cryptocoinupdates.com/invictus-innovations-announces-initial-launch-of-angelshares/

[2] -> "...Overall we raised about $3.6 million in AGS donations and now that these bonuses have been paid we have spent $3.6 million in 2014.    We had a large capital-loss on our BTC holdings and an offsetting capital gain on our BTS holdings.    Of the money we spent, 10% went to China, 10% went to US Marketing (conferences, videos, website, travel), 7% on FMV.   Our largest expense category was developer salaries and grants including ~$100K for Toast and ~$100K for HackFisher as well as salaries for over a dozen different developers." -> https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=12806.msg168469#msg168469

BTW notice the fiat quotes come from Dan not me. Furthermore, add the 575k that came from Li and that's over 4 million USD.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2015, 07:35:25 am by charleshoskinson »

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Quote
There is no doubt that a solid testing framework/methodology benefits software if it doesn't remove resources elsewhere. Duh! That is not what is being argued. I'm saying that everything is a trade off. Apparently Toast thinks that more resources should be moved into testing.  Well ok.  As long as you guys have the spare cycles then Toast would know.

Jesus, do you even read the drivel you write?

Yawn. I read my drivel along with yours.

I could see you setting yourself up for your spiel as soon as you asked thom if he worked on the software.  You are too obvious. 

You then went on with your typical jargon pumping.  I wouldn't have a problem if you'd just criticize, but you criticize things that you know little about.  I understand you worked with I3 a year ago, but they were barely programming.  Yet you extrapolate from that experience.  Just ridiculous.  Yes, a test driven release cycle/development process would be an improvement over what was in place at one point, but thats not my issue.  Having a test team with a build engineer and regression testing and all that is great, but it costs resources. 

So a guy like you sits back and says "Oh you need this and that !"  but wait "you spent way too much money" (while consistently quoting a misleading amount actually spent).  And to me I just want to bang my head against the desk because too many will eat up your bs.  Thats the thing though, it isn't really bullshit, it is just a lot of jargon that has applicability but in reality it says little.
I speak for myself and only myself.

charleshoskinson

  • Guest
Quote
There is no doubt that a solid testing framework/methodology benefits software if it doesn't remove resources elsewhere. Duh! That is not what is being argued. I'm saying that everything is a trade off. Apparently Toast thinks that more resources should be moved into testing.  Well ok.  As long as you guys have the spare cycles then Toast would know.

Jesus, do you even read the drivel you write?

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
There is no doubt that a solid testing framework/methodology benefits software if it doesn't remove resources elsewhere. Duh! That is not what is being argued. I'm saying that everything is a trade off. Apparently Toast thinks that more resources should be moved into testing.  Well ok.  As long as you guys have the spare cycles then Toast would know.

I speak for myself and only myself.


Offline sschechter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 380
    • View Profile
FWIW I agree with charles here and BM's listed improvements were because vikram and I bitched about it.

 +5%

A properly implemented agile process will improve the teams performance.  A poorly implemented process will get in the way and slow things down.  Keep agile flexible and do what works best for the team, and not what a bureaucratic layer in management wants.
BTSX: sschechter
PTS: PvBUyPrDRkJLVXZfvWjdudRtQgv1Fcy5Qe

Offline toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
FWIW I agree with charles here and BM's listed improvements were because vikram and I bitched about it.
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
You don't ad hoc cryptography, consensus and economics. Damn it guys. Believe whatever the hell you want. I'm out of this convo. Testing doesn't slow things down. It saves countless hours of future debugging. I'm sorry you can't understand that.

epic rofl.

The fact is you can test too much or test too little.  It is all tradeoffs and finding what is optimal given your specific situation.  Charles is great on blowing up clouds of authoritative smoke, but reality is things aren't as simple as just throwing out buzz words.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2015, 01:33:39 am by gamey »
I speak for myself and only myself.

charleshoskinson

  • Guest
You don't ad hoc cryptography, consensus and economics. Damn it guys. Believe whatever the hell you want. I'm out of this convo. Testing doesn't slow things down. It saves countless hours of future debugging. I'm sorry you can't understand that.

Offline bytemaster

Lets see here....   

We have a full time test developer that has promised me one test per day on average.   

We write tests that reveal a bug, then we fix the bug.   

We have implemented a phased release cycle with dev shares and are focusing on scrum style milestones.   

Our process is maturing, but it has slowed things down. 
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
The layers I recommend actually save money and time and dramatically enhance development quality. Being on scrum means you focus only on the features that are actually connected to real problems and have a process to release them in a systematic, structured way http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XU0llRltyFM.

Adopting a process like test driven development means you have an emphasis on some collection of testing processes for each commit that ensures certain classes of bugs don't creep into the code base. This saves enormous amount of time in debugging after the fact. http://youtu.be/O-ZT_dtlrR0. It's easy to do, lightweight and every single major software company does it.

As for infosec audits, you do it twice per major release. Am initial audit and a post audit to see if you fixed the security holes. Cost should be around 50-100k.

I've run or participated in several software projects in my life and seeing 4 million dollars be spent so quickly and for what has been delivered is beyond me. There isn't a clear architecture, the protocol isn't stable, the core software is terribly buggy, there is little documentation, and again many things have been designed on an Ad Hoc basis.

You really have no idea if these processes would help or hinder.  Scrum usually has a dedicated customer to interface with.  If not, then someone else has to take on these roles. Yes, more testing could always be done, but that requires less time coding.  Just because it is claimed doesn't make it true.

If you don't design anything on an ad hoc basis, then that means someone has sat around thinking out the whole thing from soup to nuts.  That is quite time consuming.  Like I said ... your criticisms don't even fit together.  Should they have sat around and spent more money and got less done?

The 4 million number you like repeating, I'm likewise not so sure about.  BTC dropped in USD and when I multipled BTC donations out by the price at the end of last year I didn't even get 2 million. If your criticisms were honest, I don't think you'd stick with the 4 million figure. 

I've worked for software R&D houses that got 5 million government contracts YEARLY and the software they produced was seriously LOL compared to the bitshares client.
I speak for myself and only myself.

charleshoskinson

  • Guest
The layers I recommend actually save money and time and dramatically enhance development quality. Being on scrum means you focus only on the features that are actually connected to real problems and have a process to release them in a systematic, structured way http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XU0llRltyFM.

Adopting a process like test driven development means you have an emphasis on some collection of testing processes for each commit that ensures certain classes of bugs don't creep into the code base. This saves enormous amount of time in debugging after the fact. http://youtu.be/O-ZT_dtlrR0. It's easy to do, lightweight and every single major software company does it.

As for infosec audits, you do it twice per major release. Am initial audit and a post audit to see if you fixed the security holes. Cost should be around 50-100k.

I've run or participated in several software projects in my life and seeing 4 million dollars be spent so quickly and for what has been delivered is beyond me. There isn't a clear architecture, the protocol isn't stable, the core software is terribly buggy, there is little documentation, and again many things have been designed on an Ad Hoc basis.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Furthermore, the development cycle is not well managed. There isn't a proper testing process in place, no method for new developer integration, major components of the system have been designed on an ad hoc basis, the code hasn't been audited by someone with a serious infosec background, etc etc. I could keep listing problems, but what is the point? Bitshares is an echo chamber. Dissent has already drifted away.

It is humorous to me how you harp on how Dan wasted a lot of money but then in the next breath you add all these layers of processes that should be created.  To me it makes zero sense but others see your contributions differently.
I speak for myself and only myself.