Re: follow-up to report 22

[Valentin Villenave]

On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> wrote:
> I'm certain that the reason I'm not on the list is because the list is in
> total disarray.

It seems that we all agree on that.

> I see several challenges associated with producing a more informative patch
> at this time:
> 1) -hackers is mostly abandoned right now, so it serves no current function.

As far as I know (although I know very little), it has been for
several years now. And obviously the "lilypond-hackers revival"
internal discussions haven't been going anywhere.

> 2) Any description of the history may be irrelevant to the future

Is it for us to decide?

> 3) Nobody knows right now exactly how -hackers *should* be organized, and it
> would take discussion time to come to agreement.
>
> 4) The people who are best-equipped to document the history are the very
> people who are most needed to resolve the Critical issues and get 2.14 out

Agreed. I never said we should drop whatever we're working on ("we"
meaning "them", if you follow me).

> Given all of these things, and the desire to get 2.14 out, I can't justify
> spending more time on documenting -hackers than I've already spent.  The
> concern is just not high enough *to me* to be worth your time.
>
> But it appears to be more important to you.  And that's why I made my
> comment about you producing a patch -- not so that you could go play in the
> corner with unimportant patches, but so that you could address an issue that
> was important *to you*.  Again, I'm sorry if this behavior was offensive
> toward you.

We should stop apologizing to each other, really :-)

> I'm positive that we can put an end to the division between people who know
> about -hackers and those who do not, by making the existence of -hackers
> public knowledge.

My goal exactly.

Cheers!
Valentin.