Re: [Gnu-arch-users] james on Canonical

[Adrian Irving-Beer]

Eh.  Ah well, I personally didn't really see baz as an overall
negative thing, but I also tended to stay out of the politics.  So
other than below, I've said my mind and don't really have anything
more to say or argue with.


On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 10:52:59PM -0700, Thomas Lord wrote:

> I dissent from the view of "little overall progress".

Maybe I had the timeframe wrong.  I thought I remembered baz being
announced during a period where people spent more time arguing about
how to do things than actually doing them, and where a lot of people
were using various integration branches rather than tla proper.

> Respect people whose work you derive value from, especially in those
> cases where free software licensing leaves that as a choice you have
> to make on your own.

Indeed.  I probably won't be using any arch code (directly, anyway),
assuming I get around to it at all.  But my thanks to you and tla for
a better immediate tool, an impromptu education in revision control,
and a good (if not perfect) concept of how to proceed -- not to
mention insights into the ups, downs, "do"s, and "don't"s of free
software project management and politics. :)


BTW, did anyone ever get around to the librification of tla and/or
baz?  I won't be using C, and I have yet to fully study today's SCMs
and come up with solid concepts of my own, but if (as I suspect) many
follow the tla tradition, I might possibly benefit from linking in
some Arch subsystems.

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature