Re: [O] My apprehensions listed (Re: Not merging org-lparse, org-xhtml org-odt to the core)
Hi Jambunathan, Thanks for your reply. I will take one week of vacation next week (till sept. 5th) and try to tackle the various issues about org-html.el and org-xhtml.el -- I will then make a proposal that I hope we can both agree upon. Again, let me rephrase that I have two goals: merging the ODT exporter into Org's core, and keeping you as a motivated contributor to Org. So be reassured that I will do whatever I can in order to smooth out the way we collaborate on this. For the record, I disagree that those who make changes to org-html.el should also backport their changes to org-xhtml.el. For example: Emacs developers make changes to Org in Emacs, and it is my responsability to backport these changes into upstream Org, not their responsability. It doesn't mean we are stuck in a painful process. I'm sure we can find a smart way of dealing with this issue. I like the motherhood metaphor: to my hears, it underlines how *patient* we need to be! And focused on the baby, not on our hope and fears. So be it :) Thanks! -- Bastien
Re: [O] My apprehensions listed (Re: Not merging org-lparse, org-xhtml org-odt to the core)
Hi Jambunathan, Jambunathan K kjambunat...@gmail.com writes: You either accept the freeze or reject the freeze. You don't overlook it. Because the later leaves me confused on where you stand on the matter. I'm not yet clear about what would be the purpose of this freeze. If we need to freeze org-html.el in the future, in order to ease the org-html.el/org-xhtml.el merge process, sure, we will freeze this file for the necessary amount of time. Let's decide this after sept. 5th, when I'm back from vacation. Thanks, -- Bastien
[O] My apprehensions listed (Re: Not merging org-lparse, org-xhtml org-odt to the core)
Bastien (Now with courtesy copy to the list) Really, Jambunathan, let's get over this useless discussion. I don't think that the discussion was intended to be useless. I have raised or recorded numerous issues that I was apprehensive about. As someone said, we both are doing our best, we should not let frustration (mine too!) guide our reactions. My only goal is this - I would like to have all three files in the core with minimum of effort expended by all parties (including you and volunteer testers). My point now is: how can we make it easy for *other people* to help us in merging org-html.el and org-xhtml.el (assuming that you agree having org-xhtml.el in core is not a good idea, tell me otherwise)? My point is having org-xhtml.el is a good idea. It takes zero effort to merge it. We only need some serious testers to give an independent assessment that org-xhtml.el is good to go. All checkins to org-html.el should merge back to org-lparse.el and/or org-odt.el and org-html.el. It is the responsibility of the whoever makes the commit to that file. (There has been checkin to org-html.el yesterday) Anyone should think twice before making widestpread changes to org-html.el. It is difficult for me to work when the ground beneath me is shifting. As a maintainer, it is your responsibility to make sure that you don't do it yourself and nobody else does it. I have said it twice already. As I said, I will open a new thread with my merge proposals. I think I've perhaps put too much pressure on you by implicitly expecting that *you* would do this merge -- but this can be a task for several people. Most people who have participated on this thread are onlookers (in a non-derogatory sense) and none of them have committed upfront so much as 10 month of effort into sole purpose improving something while also living with uncertainty of whether their efforts will make it's way back in to the core. My situation is akin to a first-time would-be-mother who has confused sense of high hope and worst fears. It is a daunting feeling. I am sure there are enough fathers (if no mothers) in this list. I will tell Nick Dokos only this. Whether a person is civil or uncivil shouldn't really matter. Etiquette matters but doesn't matter so much as understanding. IMHO, everyone should make sincere effort to cut through and look in to a person's innermost fears, concerns and apprehensions. If this doesn't happen the person has failed in a moral sense. I fear that 1. I will end up doing too much work. 2. Maintainers have not invested or unwilling/unable to expend sufficient time to assess the changes in org-lparse.el and org-xhtml.el. This fuels the fear because it is easy to discard something than to assess something and embrace it. 3. I will end up just walking away being annoyed throwing everything that I have put my heart in to. I have a life-long record of doing this. 4. People will move on to other things and start talking about the next awesone way to improve in Orgmode. I need an assurance on 2. I want a freeze on org-html.el going forward. Whatever happens the last thing that I want is an abandonware. There lies my bottomline. Jambunathan K.
Re: [O] My apprehensions listed (Re: Not merging org-lparse, org-xhtml org-odt to the core)
Bastien All checkins to org-html.el should merge back to org-lparse.el and/or org-odt.el and org-html.el. It is the responsibility of the whoever makes the commit to that file. (There has been checkin to org-html.el yesterday) Anyone should think twice before making widestpread changes to org-html.el. It is difficult for me to work when the ground beneath me is shifting. As a maintainer, it is your responsibility to make sure that you don't do it yourself and nobody else does it. I have said it twice already. I am re-sending this for emphasis. I am not convinced that you have paid heed to what I have been trying to say (because there had been a checkin yesterday) This is what I expressed sometime back. , See http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/2011-07/msg01294.html | ps: I would desire that any changes to org-html.el also need to be | ported to org-lparse.el and (or) org-xhtml.el. ` There is also one post roughly (I believe in February or March) Requesting a feature freeze is a common practice. You either accept the freeze or reject the freeze. You don't overlook it. Because the later leaves me confused on where you stand on the matter. Jambunathan K.
Re: [O] My apprehensions listed (Re: Not merging org-lparse, org-xhtml org-odt to the core)
Jambunathan K kjambunat...@gmail.com wrote: ... I will tell Nick Dokos only this. Whether a person is civil or uncivil shouldn't really matter. Etiquette matters but doesn't matter so much as understanding. IMHO, everyone should make sincere effort to cut through and look in to a person's innermost fears, concerns and apprehensions. I disagree: it most definitely matters and it's not just etiquette either that I'm talking about. I'm talking about respect for the other person's point of view; in fact, something very close to what you express in your last sentence above. If I'm ranting and raving against you, how can I possibly look in at your ...fears, concerns and apprehensions? All I'd be thinking about is how to hurt you. And remember that I only felt compelled to say something when I saw what I considered an ad hominem attack. Before that, even though I most definitely did not like the tone of the discussion, there were reasonable technical points being addressed. The trouble is that when the tone becomes grating (as it did), it gets harder and harder to avoid the ad hominem part and whatever discussion was going on cannot continue being a discussion on the matters of interest. It becomes a me against you and whoever is not for me is against me kind of thing - there are no shades of gray, only black and white. That's why incivility matters. There are of course cases where no such respect should be given: if someone is consistently making an ass of himself, then shouting him down may be the only alternative. But I hope that we all understand that we are not in this situation here: there has been frustration (on both sides), some of it legitimate, some of it perhaps not. But I think that both Bastien and you know deep down that you both care very much for orgmode (that's why we are *all* here), so it behooves you (both of you) to find a way forward. If this doesn't happen the person has failed in a moral sense. [I don't understand what you mean here: which person has failed? The same person whose fears, concerns and apprehensions have not been understood? Or the other? ] In any case, I have said more than I wanted to say on the matter at hand, so I'll shut up for now and hope that things proceed in a more constructive direction in the future. Nick
