Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: > I didn't mean to imply that anyone else uses catalyst as a toy. What I > was saying is that catalyst is a "crucial" tool to releng, whilst to > some of the people currently working on it (having commit privileges to > the repo) it could be a "toy".
I'm pretty sure Sebastian is not spending time on catalyst because it makes him laugh. :) > I did not and do not in any way want to diminish the importance of the > tool to any of its users. At the same time, it should be obvious that > releng is a "special" user of the tool. I'm not so sure I buy that. But we can punt on that. > >> It did made a significant change to the dependencies of catalyst. > > > > No, not really. It added one dependency, which is hardly significant. > > As has already been shown (by others than William, might I add) > > further indirect dependencies are really a bug in the asciidoc > > ebuild, and should be fixed there. .. > As you know the current dependency pulls more than 10 deps. I don't > know if they're accurate or not, but they show up when you try to > merge catalyst-9999. And those who really dislike them can look into getting rid of them. > If those deps are wrong, we should try to get the team maintaining > the asciidoc package fix them. Yeah, to silence this silly discussion I tried to do exactly that. But see my point above: > > Since you are all developers (while I am not) you could actually > > *already* have eliminated the point of contention Again, I believe the problem is solved by the attachments I made to #361255. (Note that the oldest version in portage, 8.2.6, correctly does not have the dep.) > He wasn't happy to see something pushed through in a so short time span > and in a way that seemed to go over others opinions. I also wasn't happy. Yes, how will we all cope with a six year old man page being updated. :p > like any other open source project, there needs to be some consensus. This is fair. But the fact that others only recently have gotten commit access is likely just coincidence. I'm at least quite convinced that it has nothing to do with why Sebastian started looking at the tool. > We're not interested in frozen tools, but we're also not ready to > be kept in the sidelines or ignored about catalyst development. Cool. More activity in the catalyst community can only be good! > Some of the people now working on them are not building or > responsible for the building of the official releases, I and a few > others are. Again, I'm not so sure that this matters very much. If an older version worked for you then maybe that's what you should keep using until latest git has also been verified to work for you? Dunno, this is trickier, and indeed something important (for you) to figure out, when you choose to open source "your" tool. (Which I think is a good move!) > I have no interest in having catalyst forked, but for that, the > developers that got access to catalyst need to realize they need > to work with releng and can't ignore it. I guess you've read the full thread and also know how little activity there has been on the list. Since there was very close to zero activity here over many months I think it's safe to assume that any ignoring was not really in spite, but rather a side effect of ignorees being too slow to keep up with the momentum. > Sometimes forks can be the best solution, but I really would like > to avoid that. Well, even if there is a fork that doesn't mean that changes can not flow both ways. Again, if one user of a tool has special needs it's not at all a bad idea to have a fork. > So, I think a fork should be the last option and that we should work > hard to reach decisions that everyone can live with. It took me all of an hour to (continue) research *and fix* the problem in the asciidoc ebuilds. That's probably less than people have spent on emails in this thread. :) > >> This is about making sure that the people interested as well as the > >> direct consumers of the tool are ok with any proposed changes. > > > > You are neglecting every other user than releng. That means me. That > > sucks. > > That is not my purpose. Furthermore, as I've tried to explain above, my > previous mail was not about the users of the tool but about the recent > people committing to the repo. I'm also quite convinced that Sebastien wouldn't be spending time on catalyst unless he was using it. :) (In fact, maybe even because I've told him about how I use it!) //Peter
