On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 11:53:28AM -0400, Don Bailey wrote: > It's not gaslighting to ask for evidence. I was here, I remember the > complains with Fossil. But to what degree was that /actually/ Fossil? What > degree was it the configurations, the hardware, the firmware, the > consistency of management/usage? What investigations have gone into those > bits, as well. Setting up and running Fossil requires some knowledge and > maintenance. It is not unlike a classic Volkswagen. They run great if you > constantly bother with them.
Believe me, it causes me great personal pain to say this, as a dude who just sold an 85 Jetta and must physically restrain himself from filling his yard with air-cooled Boxers, but "constantly bothering" and "running great" are mutually exclusive. > It isn't gaslighting to ask for those details. And if we are a code-centric > community, as we claim to be, point to the code that shows me it's > problematic and unstable. Have you found it? And I don't say that to be > coy... where can we demonstrably show that Fossil is volatile? What data > backs that up? It's great that you're willing to take bug reports seriously! If that had been the prevailing attitude on 9fans some years back, 9front probably wouldn't exist, much less exist without an in-tree Fossil. But your "point to the code" demand is not a great look. That *is* more like the old-school response to Fossil bug reports. In a way, deleting Fossil was the grandest test of all -- since it's gone, Fossil has stopped corrupting my data for sure. So there's the code causing the problem, at the granularity I consider worthwhile to pursue. Nobody owes you a scientific analysis. But if you (or anyone else) wants to put this stuff back in the 9front tree, it needs to be clearly demonstrated that it won't be a massive timesink and a distraction from the other, more fun filesystems we have. > So this is, again, the problem I have with what has occurred on this list. > Anything certain parties here disagree with is brushed off as trolling or > "gaslighting" or any other such term that rationalizes dismissal. Let's be > prescriptive, instead. No, not "anything." Specifically this Fossil nonsense. I don't know why so many people have deep emotional ties to Fossil, and I'm not really interested in finding out, but the years of hostility torward problem reports regarding Fossil, interspersed with "fixes" that weren't, led me (as an outsider) to conclude that nobody actually understands how the damn thing works, and if they do they're not interested in helping maintain it... and that alone is a great reason to delete the code. Anyway I don't understand why everyone is pissed about this. Anyone who wants Fossil can install it. If you want a 'canonical' Fossil, upload it somewhere and canonize it. Problem solved. As an aside, not directed at you, Don: this weird bootlicking where a commercial entity has to be involved to make something 'real' is pretty gross. We don't need bureaucracy to help one another, and I will never give a shit if someone's use of the software is for-profit or not, and I don't understand why it matters at all. khm ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tad3dc0c93039a7d2-Mda8af7748da9f37163180f4d Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
