oh, sorry, just found the paragraph in an earlier one,... Peter Simons schrieb:
I have a problem with you copying my infrastructure, the archive I maintain, the web page I created around it (verbatim, word by word) -- but you don't give any credit about it at all. Even better, you actually bash the effort I am putting into it. (On this list, on your web site, and in the commit messages of your CVS repository.)
that's because my addition had been about packaging and local installation. Of course it builds on top of your work, and picks up large parts of the infrastructure. Only in the very latest versions I did start with replacing the old infrastructure with a new one but I would rather like to not do so since it does lead to more doublework - that's not good IMO.
I have a problem with you misleading the users of your archive. On your web page you say: | If you want to contribute ... | | then please don't hesitate a second! Just send the m4 source to | Guido Draheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> via electronic mail. [...] Note that | the two ac-archive repositories (sourceforge and savannah) are | constantly kept in sync [...]. The two archives are NOT kept "in sync". You download the macros from the GNU archive and add them into yours -- but not the other way round, because I do not accept submissions unless they come from the AUTHOR of the macro, since he is the only person who can license his intellectual property according to the terms described on my page. You make it look as if it really doesn't matter where authors send their macros to, because they will end up in both archives anyway, right? The truth is, that if someone submits a macro to the GNU archive, it will end up in both archives. If he sends it to you, it will be available in yours only.
well, there was a time that I had write access to the gnu cvs and it was the time that the two ac-archives could be kept in sync both ways even when the macro was sent to me first. It happens that the respective document that you quote is verrry old as well. I do not quite recall when you did revoke write-access but I guess it was after the lines were written that you quote as evidence. sorry, I might need to change that, it is clearly misleading.
I furthermore have a problem with you advertising your archive as being the cool one, which "offers space for experimental extras", while you call the original one the "basic archive". What exactly does that mean? Do you have evidence of me ever rejecting a submission because it was too "experimental"?
No - it is about the `user directories`. As said in an earlier mail, I was hoping that the sfnet branch could not _just_ be about packaging but used for something more like a playground for a variety of sourceforge people and their macros, so they can list their extra macros in a central place. It was not used that widely, there was no intent to mark it as "the cool one", in fact _I_ would associate with "experimental" something like unstable and not that overly attractive, ye know. (Nice plot however to turn that the other way, I didn't ever think about that mode, but indeed, some update-junkies in the opensource world might think that it is cool - in fact I do know some of these types, and now that you say it, hmm, it could be really seen as that...ooops *g*)
I have a problem with you -- through intent or carelessness -- breaking the build mechanism of the GNU archive, as I have said repeatedly. My impression is that you have a _personal_ problem with me. Not the other way round. When I posted my original article to this list, I knew that you would JUMP at it, and that you wouldn't have many positive things to say about what I do. Surprise! Here we are.
That's by another background - I do a lot of xml stuff and text retrivial these days, and from my personal experience I do not like that users edit xml text _manually_. It should really be an intermediate format that can be fed from very different sides like perhaps a script that turns the traditional format into such an intermediate format. But there may even be other formats for the `original source` - it opens the possibility to just change the submission format and still be able to use the old formatting chain of tools, or to attached a parallel formatting chain of tools to target a different output media. The xml world offers a great amount of tools, and that's surely the greatest thing which did make for the sucess of xml - it is my personal opinion that the success of the xml format is not in its ability of being a nice format for human users to write their original stuff with. So, of course I would jump in and be critizing, as I have some knowledge in xml, and I did express my doubts in an earlier thread about the topic (a few months back?). So yes, no surprise here, but that was not related to any personal problem I might have with you. It's been about technical details, and nothing else that made me jump in (minus the last paragraph in the first response, to be fair)
To address the other part of your statement: I reply to e-mails I receive through a public forum in the same public forum. Sending an e-mail to this list, which makes false claims, and then telling me that we should discuss this in private, is a half-assed way of trying to get the last word.
To give you my phone number in a private e-mail a year back, that can not count as a half-assed way of trying to get the last word. I did see problems coming up back then, and I did want to get them out of the world as soon as possible. The same thing is on now, a long time later, and to just have a talk on the phone is simply the _fastest_ thing to do without bothering the rest of the mailing list with it. Surely, the rest of the mailing list can not follow in that, so you're right, we might need to let this thread meander to its end just as every flame war has to be. ;-) ... that's no problem with me either. :-)=) ... but I don't need to like it, and I still don't think the situation is exactly the way that you describe as "crystal-clear" in another mail. (btw, is "crystal-clear" a term understood outside of german regions?). anyway, let's stop this response here, it is quite long even now, rest assured that I am ready to pick up any point if there is a wish to handle it. Oh, perhaps this gem...
Last but not least, let's look at your repeated claim that I threw
away your work.
That's just how it felt - you do say now that there were problems with the changes but you did not tell about these BACK THEN and you did not respond to my attempts to resolve the issue BACK THEN to make my `extra stuff` live along well with what you were heading for. You did not use mail or phone BACK THEN. And NOW, we have to go by that in public in a nice looooooong flaming session. :-) let's see where that ends, - btw, there are of course signs with me being disgruntled and doing my own stuff independently, but I was always trying to keep the door open for a merger so there is little evidence to be found for real - only as of late I was starting to think as to just move ahead and add stuff without caring about compatibility with the gnu cvs infrastructure. Perhaps it is lucky this thread started before the door for a merger is shut for real. cheers, guido
