[Gnu-arch-users] Re: community spirit

[Samuel Tardieu]

>>>>> "Zenaan" == Zenaan Harkness <address@hidden> writes:

Zenaan> Do you not agree that there was any fedora/egcs like approach
Zenaan> _at all_, or are you being willfully ignorant, or simply
Zenaan> biased for some reason?

Sure, it looks like the EGCS/GCC fork that happened some years
ago. But heck, I liked this fork when it happened. Let me state how I
viewed it at the time. Contributors had the choice of working with
Richard Kenner (who is someone I like really much in real life) who
delayed the release of gcc 2.8 by an awfully long time for many
reasons, or working with Cygnus people on EGCS on the integration of
the new Haifa instruction scheduler and other stuff even if it
introduced major disturbances.

The net result was that GCC did mostly adopt EGCS as its new code
base, and that a board was put in place to control the development of
GCC instead of having a single point of decision. So this fork was
definitely a good thing.

Zenaan> What's so difficult about understanding this "community"
Zenaan> expectation?

I recognize Tom's value as the father of Arch, his ideas are very
interesting and tla works for me like no other RCS did before. But I
don't think that every decision made by Tom is the best. For example,
I think that he is plain wrong on the way he plans to handle patch-log
pruning. Having a compatible alternative is good.

Zenaan> As in: "hey guys, this is a new UI approach we are planning to
Zenaan> take (in fact launching and well into discussion), what do you
Zenaan> think, is there a better way, is anyone willing to put a big
Zenaan> tla-librify effort in as we go forward with this (since we
Zenaan> don't otherwise have the resources), and by the way, here's
Zenaan> the wiki page to discuss the actual UI approach - feedback is
Zenaan> of course all the rage these days, I hear."

Some people talk. Some people do. Tom has stated many times that he
prefers wrappers rather than changing tla to be more user-friendly (he
is against command abbreviations for example, because newly added
commands may get in the way of existing abbreviations). I can
perfectly understand that people might want to do some changes for
their own use and then announce them and try to get people to
participate.

Zenaan> Can you see _any_ difference between this hypothetical
Zenaan> announcement/ RFC, and the actual one by Canonical?

Sure. But both methods look perfectly fine to me, and I have a hard
time figuring out that it may look rude to Tom.

  Sam
-- 
Samuel Tardieu -- address@hidden -- http://www.rfc1149.net/sam