> cvs adds multiple extra steps, especially as utilized on sourceforge. I
> use cvs daily on multiple platforms and am very aware of the setup and
> limitations involved.
He's already using cvs there. Enabling it to be public for others to
use and view the code in, is a single toggle. It in _no way_ changes any
steps involved with the way he's already using it. It doesn't "increase" the
complexity in any way at all.
> You aren't writing JPluck, nor any of my open-source projects (about half
> of which I have under cvs), nor do we report to you, so our decisions must
> be our own. The valuation I apply is this:
You have no idea what projects I'm writing or am involved with, nor
what other projects I am using code from, looking at for ideas, or patching
and contributing code to directly, without having commit access to the
project cvs itself. Your opinion is one thing, but it doesn't apply here.
> If the developer doesn't want to do something, he doesn't have to. This
> includes working on the project at all. It also includes putting it under
> cvs instead of investing a similar amount of time and annoyance
> (regardless of how much annoyance YOU think it would cause - it's his
> call, not yours) into new features or a better distribution package.
You're preaching to the choir here, and you should know that
already.
You forget that making the project public, encourages others to look
at the code, use it, repurpose it, borrow pieces from it, improve it, etc.
If you only care about making it a one-person project, why put it on a
collaborative site like SourceForge, which is wrapped around facilities that
encourage community contributions (bugtracking, forums, news, cvs, etc.)?
You could just as easily keep all the code "in-house", and just put the
release tarballs (or .exe files in this case) on an ftp site for others to
download when there are new releases.
> BTW, I asked you for source to the Perl plucker about ten months ago when
> it was still forming; seems to me you refused.
Absolutely, because it hasn't been released. No argument there.
> Which increases the load for programmers who don't use cvs at home, a
> group that probably significantly outnumbers programmers who do.
You're out of context. He's already using cvs, so it doesn't
increase the load of programmers who do not use it. They have the tarballs
if they want, and SourceForge also produces "cvs snapshots" if you enable
it. Programmers who wish to use the cvs source, will do so. Those who do
not, won't. I'm not seeing your analogy here.
> But, as always, you are free to write a competitor to JPluck yourself and
> cvs it.
Quite well ahead of you on this one, but yes, good point.
I personally don't care what he does with the SourceForge interface
he already uses, and I've made that clear before. If he doesn't want to
encourage adoption of his code in other projects, that's his perogative as
well, and he's done that. It's his project, and he can do what he wants.
My only complaint is that now, the only way to obtain the source, is
by running a proprietary operating system and extracting it on that system,
so that it can be used on other platforms. If that is his model, he should
change the licensing to reflect that, as he has done in the past.
This is yet another circle where we go round and round. Let's take
it off-list, or just agree to disagree.
d.
_______________________________________________
plucker-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-list
