| 1 |
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: |
| 2 |
> I didn't mean to imply that anyone else uses catalyst as a toy. What I |
| 3 |
> was saying is that catalyst is a "crucial" tool to releng, whilst to |
| 4 |
> some of the people currently working on it (having commit privileges to |
| 5 |
> the repo) it could be a "toy". |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I'm pretty sure Sebastian is not spending time on catalyst because it |
| 8 |
makes him laugh. :) |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> I did not and do not in any way want to diminish the importance of the |
| 12 |
> tool to any of its users. At the same time, it should be obvious that |
| 13 |
> releng is a "special" user of the tool. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I'm not so sure I buy that. But we can punt on that. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> >> It did made a significant change to the dependencies of catalyst. |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> > No, not really. It added one dependency, which is hardly significant. |
| 21 |
> > As has already been shown (by others than William, might I add) |
| 22 |
> > further indirect dependencies are really a bug in the asciidoc |
| 23 |
> > ebuild, and should be fixed there. |
| 24 |
.. |
| 25 |
> As you know the current dependency pulls more than 10 deps. I don't |
| 26 |
> know if they're accurate or not, but they show up when you try to |
| 27 |
> merge catalyst-9999. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
And those who really dislike them can look into getting rid of them. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> If those deps are wrong, we should try to get the team maintaining |
| 33 |
> the asciidoc package fix them. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Yeah, to silence this silly discussion I tried to do exactly that. |
| 36 |
But see my point above: |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
> > Since you are all developers (while I am not) you could actually |
| 39 |
> > *already* have eliminated the point of contention |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Again, I believe the problem is solved by the attachments I made to |
| 42 |
#361255. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
(Note that the oldest version in portage, 8.2.6, correctly does not |
| 45 |
have the dep.) |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
> He wasn't happy to see something pushed through in a so short time span |
| 49 |
> and in a way that seemed to go over others opinions. I also wasn't happy. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
Yes, how will we all cope with a six year old man page being updated. :p |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
> like any other open source project, there needs to be some consensus. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
This is fair. But the fact that others only recently have gotten |
| 57 |
commit access is likely just coincidence. I'm at least quite |
| 58 |
convinced that it has nothing to do with why Sebastian started |
| 59 |
looking at the tool. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
> We're not interested in frozen tools, but we're also not ready to |
| 63 |
> be kept in the sidelines or ignored about catalyst development. |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
Cool. More activity in the catalyst community can only be good! |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
> Some of the people now working on them are not building or |
| 69 |
> responsible for the building of the official releases, I and a few |
| 70 |
> others are. |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
Again, I'm not so sure that this matters very much. If an older |
| 73 |
version worked for you then maybe that's what you should keep using |
| 74 |
until latest git has also been verified to work for you? Dunno, this |
| 75 |
is trickier, and indeed something important (for you) to figure out, |
| 76 |
when you choose to open source "your" tool. (Which I think is a good |
| 77 |
move!) |
| 78 |
|
| 79 |
|
| 80 |
> I have no interest in having catalyst forked, but for that, the |
| 81 |
> developers that got access to catalyst need to realize they need |
| 82 |
> to work with releng and can't ignore it. |
| 83 |
|
| 84 |
I guess you've read the full thread and also know how little activity |
| 85 |
there has been on the list. Since there was very close to zero |
| 86 |
activity here over many months I think it's safe to assume that any |
| 87 |
ignoring was not really in spite, but rather a side effect of |
| 88 |
ignorees being too slow to keep up with the momentum. |
| 89 |
|
| 90 |
|
| 91 |
> Sometimes forks can be the best solution, but I really would like |
| 92 |
> to avoid that. |
| 93 |
|
| 94 |
Well, even if there is a fork that doesn't mean that changes can not |
| 95 |
flow both ways. Again, if one user of a tool has special needs it's |
| 96 |
not at all a bad idea to have a fork. |
| 97 |
|
| 98 |
|
| 99 |
> So, I think a fork should be the last option and that we should work |
| 100 |
> hard to reach decisions that everyone can live with. |
| 101 |
|
| 102 |
It took me all of an hour to (continue) research *and fix* the |
| 103 |
problem in the asciidoc ebuilds. That's probably less than people |
| 104 |
have spent on emails in this thread. :) |
| 105 |
|
| 106 |
|
| 107 |
> >> This is about making sure that the people interested as well as the |
| 108 |
> >> direct consumers of the tool are ok with any proposed changes. |
| 109 |
> > |
| 110 |
> > You are neglecting every other user than releng. That means me. That |
| 111 |
> > sucks. |
| 112 |
> |
| 113 |
> That is not my purpose. Furthermore, as I've tried to explain above, my |
| 114 |
> previous mail was not about the users of the tool but about the recent |
| 115 |
> people committing to the repo. |
| 116 |
|
| 117 |
I'm also quite convinced that Sebastien wouldn't be spending time on |
| 118 |
catalyst unless he was using it. :) (In fact, maybe even because I've |
| 119 |
told him about how I use it!) |
| 120 |
|
| 121 |
|
| 122 |
//Peter |
Archives