On 5/15/24 10:18, Lucio De Re wrote: > What makes you think I want Fossil back in 9front? I suggested that the > sources could be included in the distribution, so they would not fork-rot as > they are doing presently.
I don't understand the difference between code being included in the distribution and being "back in 9front". These are the same thing. If we ship code we maintain it. It's always been the case that the Plan 9 distribution included "broken" sources that could not be compiled without external support, but were interesting enough to be published. That changed some when Alef was dropped and in fact I saved the Alef development stuff and ported it to 3ed and 4ed because I disagreed with the > decision. Note that I made a sweeping generalisation, for simplicity, much > was discarded between 2ed and 4ed, and I find all that quite regrettable. That's not how things are maintained in 9front, if things are shipped with the system they should build and be useful. Nowadays we have tests that run every night to ensure that things continue to build and work as advertised. > > I am certain that Cinap had good reasons for removing Fossil, but I'm not > sure you have painted the entire picture for this audience. No matter, of > course, 9front will be what 9front will be. What is missing from my description? > > I'm not going to argue with the semantic subtleties of "bad" as you interpret > it, but I will privately consider your judgement and interpret your postings > with a bias parallel to the one you have displayed toward me so far. I like 9front, that's not any secret. I don't have anything against you. ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tad3dc0c93039a7d2-M0cee12bd7f19ee6d277b72f2 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
