> I suspect Gildásio used "demand" but meant "request". Nothing else in > their email implies that they're 'demanding' anything from Jason, the > maintainer, or anyone else.
Hear hear. I didn't think I was reading too charitably in assuming a translation quirk. I know I do a far worse job of trying to speak any non-English languages than that. > I think it might be reasonable for people to seriously consider > forking Pass. [etc.] Those desiring a version of pass that's more, how should I put it, 'continually iterated on', might consider 'gopass': https://github.com/gopasspw/gopass It's a re-write rather than an actual fork, but it aims for pass-compatibility and is already (~4k 'stars') popular. I've no affiliation (perhaps some trivial patch), and perhaps there's a good reason (?) to prefer a true fork/a bash script (ok it's truer to the front and centre Unix philosophy adhered to by pass I suppose) in which case this isn't that. If the most important thing to you in 'pass' is a new feature though, I think it's considerably more likely 'over there'. -- Oliver Ford [email protected] On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, at 19:59, Kenny Evitt wrote: > I suspect Gildásio used "demand" but meant "request". Nothing else in > their email implies that they're 'demanding' anything from Jason, the > maintainer, or anyone else. > > > > I think it might be reasonable for people to seriously consider > forking Pass. No one's obligated to do anything. But no one's > obligated to refrain from changing Pass, or refrain from sharing those > changes either. > > (I'd strongly suggest picking a new distinctive name, or at least a > distinctive variation on "pass" or "password store".) > > I suspect Jason considers Pass mostly complete as-is. And that's fine! > I mostly agree with that myself. My own previous patches were never > accepted, and Jason had good reasons for doing so. > > But it's frustrating not having patches accepted, or running one's own > custom private 'fork'. If people want to make changes useful to them, > and share those changes with others, then a fork could make sense. > (It's a lot of work tho!) > > > On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 10:07 AM Jonas Kalderstam > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 9 April 2021 04:09:03 CEST, "Gildásio Júnior" > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >I have the same demand as Alessandro Accardo mentioned in Sep 2018 [0]. > > >He submited a patch, receive a feedback, updated it and I couldn't see > > >any other new feedback. > > > > I wouldn't expect much in terms of a reply when you have "demands" on > > people working for free in their spare time.. > > > > >PS: I didn't have experience contribut with git patches by email. So > > >please let me know if I did something wrong and how can get the right > > >path. > > > > See https://git-send-email.io for an excellent guide to git and email. > > > > > >
