[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Unifying and

From: Guido Draheim
Subject: Re: Unifying and
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 18:50:49 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; de-AT; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826

Peter Simons schrieb:
would make you believe that I do not want to include submissions
unless they come from the author of the macro. Downloading the macros
from a third-party site is not an option. Not to mention the fact that
two archives cross-updating each other is a maintenance nightmare.

agreed - cross-updating is very problematic. It might be possible
to invent tools to help, but actually I do not want to do so
either - let's use the word "inappropriate" for what we want to
achieve after all.

 > To put the maintaince on two shoulders would be the best [...]. It
 > seems however that such is not an option for you [...].

If by "putting the maintenance on two shoulders" you mean that you get
commits rights to the GNU repository, then indeed, this is not an
option. I have had my share of experience with the quality of your
work on the archive, and I am reluctant to assume that everything will
be pretty and flowery from now on. You know how the saying goes:

    If you fool me once, _you_ must be ashamed.
    If you fool me twice, _I_ must be ashamed.

The term `fool me` implies intent - there was no such thing.
When two people work on the same thing then there will be
errors at some place - you could have notified me back then
to let me correct it and be more careful afterwards. There
was no after that. You did not tell me, I knew of the fact
just now. It seems to be more by another saying that you
seem to be thinking of:

   too many cooks spoil the broth.

IMO, the means to overcome it is... communications. I see
that you do not think that it is worth it, or that I am not
worthy for you as to being talked to when you "know" sth.
(which there wasn't but you still keep with it, it seems).
You seem to think that you can do it all by yourself, hmmm,
well, that's an opinion - and I might say a valid one. The
workload is not that much that two guys are needed to
handle the submissions.

I still maintain however that there are differences in
the style that you and me handle submissions - you did
never answer the numerous times that I stated that you
were usually handling submissions weeks and weeks in
delay. I would be all too happy if you could promise
that it will turn to the better in the future.

My own standard is to try to handle it daily, and if
there are problems, atleast send out a reply within
a few days later, never more than a week.

 >> (3) The macro repository (and I mean just the actual macros) are
 >> maintained in the GNU archive, and the SourceForge archive goes on
 >> to provide an alternate _presentation_ of them [...]

 > I do not want to limit that to just `non-gnu` or `experimental` or
 > some such, in fact I think that it should be some more status
 > levels [, ...] as examples it could be experimental, proposed,
 > semi-standard, or just alpha, beta, in-review.

You assume that there are macros that would be alright for the
SourceForge archive but not for the GNU archive. This is wrong. There
is no "quality standard" on the GNU archive that a macro must fulfill.
I include _everything_ that is submitted to me unless it is glaringly
obvious that the macro is useless. I do have neither the time nor the
competence to assess the quality of every submission. And I would be
very surprised if you did.

Yes, I did. Always. - I might lack the competence to do a full
review but I can comment on the style that was picked - how to
name cache-variables, deploying AC_LANG changes around, to add
if-exec and if-not-exec, adding default values and documenting
them, and bunch of other things that do not need to be all too
close with the actual subject - but which can make it easier for
the actual "users" of that specific macro to get a read into it
and have nice experiences as it combines better with the macros
from the autoconf main project.

Judging the quality of a macro in an arbitrary process is worse than
not to judge it at all. Thus, I accept _any_ submission as long as it
comes from the author.

Actually, I was thinking of the original author to place an
attribution of status - and it does not need to be `experimental`
or some such. Speaking of my own experiences, I would like to
add something like `just-an-idea`, `used-in-one-released-project`,
or `used-in-many-projects-around`.

A much better development of the events would be if the authors of the
macros received feedback from their users. But this is an different
story ...

 > I don't like to talk about (1) and (2) actually [...]

If I a got a penny for every paragraph in my postings, which you
refuse to address ... :-)

Well, I could counter that on the same lines :-)=)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]