On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Jehan <je...@zemarmot.net> wrote: > Hi, > > Le 2015-05-31 04:35, David Morris a écrit : >> >> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 9:46 PM, J G <jmzho...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi David, >>> >>> What do you mean full control? As far as it remains GPL and GI agrees, >>> I am fine with that. :) >> >> >> Yes, it would stay GPL. Full control is probably the wrong way to >> state it. Here is what I mean: I'm a big believer in one person >> providing direction for a software project and designing the overall >> architecture. My experience is it always leads to a better end >> product. > > > Thanks for the proposition to continue the mrxvt project. I have only one > concern about the form, this is that you are asking to get "full control" > even before having checked at the code. By "full control", I guess you mean > you want to be considered the new official upstream (since you can as well > make a fork and you'd be in full control there). > Now don't get me wrong. Same as everyone, I'd be far more than happy to get > a new maintainer who actually make this project alive again. But the Free > Software way is that you'd send us a few patches and they'd be good quality. > Really the "step" is not very high. As you know, contributions are nearly > non-existent for years. It will be very easy to get all our agreement to > take the project over with a few good patches. > But speaking about getting full control before even having sent a single > patch feels a little like putting the cart before the horse to me.
Jehan, I understand your concerns. Reading what you wrote, I realize what I said must have sounded arrogant and presumptuous but that was not at all my intention. Let me explain my view which prompted me to ask about that: First, let me apologize in advance if any of the below sounds harsh. Yesterday I broke a bone in my foot and I am in a hospital in Bolivia (I am traveling) in pain waiting for surgery. I'm trying to be considerate and polite but I'm honestly not certain if I m succeeding. But I also don't have a lot to do while I wait so why not write this email? My concern is taking on an effective role as official upstream maintainer without having the actual role (and thus authority) of being the official upstream maintainer. I have been there in the past and I am NEVER doing it again under any circumstances, even if the actual maintainer is a nice and considerate person. The scars of past experience run far too deep and I remember all too well the stress it can cause. If there were any active developers at all this would not be an issue because I would simply be another person contributing to a software project. But the code has been all but abandoned for years. However, I am not asking to just become the maintainer on faith alone. Before I can even decide if I want to do anything, I need to learn the code architecture and test out the existing utf8 (etc.) support. If I'm involved at all, bug fixes and small(-ish) patches would be the first step simply by virtue of fixing any problems I see in the code as I learn about what exists now. It would be impossible for me to even decide to if I want to be the official upstream maintainer without developing such patches! You suggest I am saying simply "give me control" but that is not at all my intention and I apologize if it seemed I was asking that. It would indeed be putting the cart before the horse as I have not even decided yet if I want to work on the code at all, much less take over that responsibility!!!! I was trying to learn what are the possibilities and limits of my future involvement. If me becoming the official upstream maintainer is not a possibility, that limits what I would consider doing for the project and how much time I will spend looking at the code. But as I said, it would be a completely different story if there were even one person still actively working on the code. Everything I am asking now is to learn what the state of the code is, what possibilities have been considered, and what is the design philosophy of mrxvt in the eyes of its creators. > Same as others, I'd be in favor to keep mrxvt as self-contained as possible. > Not because I don't like dependencies and want to reinvent the wheel, but > because otherwise there is not much point of mrxvt compared to other > existing (and very good!) terminal emulators. Also it worked well until now > this way. I think most people want UTF-8 as higher priority. I doubt that > passing to GTK+ or adding other dependency be considered as any importance > to users, me included. I suppose, the real question is: what are the requirements mrxvt was developed around? Is being self contained to the extent possible one of the original design requirements or is that an artifact of something else such as maintaining high performance as was suggested earlier? Speaking of requirements, has anyone ever written down requirements for mrxvt or has it grown organically? Thank you for your thoughts on all of this! David ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Materm-devel mailing list Materm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/materm-devel mrxvt home page: http://materm.sourceforge.net
