Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 01:28:38PM +0200, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 12:57:24PM +0200, Kornel Benko wrote:
> > > > you have good and valid arguments. But don't you see how insulting some 
> > > > of
> > > > your mails are?
> > > 
> > > No, I actually don't. And I apologize if it may seem so.
> > 
> > It unfortunately seems so :(
> 
> Please, pay attention to not confusing hypocrisy and frankness.

After reading all the thread now, would you call the position below 
hypocritical?

1. I do not like needauth mechanism much, but I don't see better way how to
   allow advanced users to work with knitr/gnuplot without too much hassle.
   
2. We want minted support. New implementation does not work out of the box,
   and if we want it working & secure we need extend needauth more broadly
   into the code.
   
   If there was no other way, it would be indeed unfair to use needauth
   unilateraly (that's your 'hypocrisy' argument if I get it right), but there
   seems to be pretty good chance that minted maintainer will solve the issue
   within couple months, which gives two other possible ways for ppl uneasy
   with needauth:
   a) return back to 2.2 behaviour and wait until maintainer of minted
      let us call pygments directly and introduce it in the next cycle.
   b) have minted & needauth, but drop it once we can (and I would propose
      the same thing for knitr/gnuplot if it ever becomes possible).

I can't read other people minds to speculate about their inner intensions,
but to feel uneasiness about needauth-machinery creepism into the code
seems valid reasoning from my perspective.

Pavel

Reply via email to