[Gnu-arch-users] Maintainership, and whiners...

[Thomas Lord]

ams:

> Blech, all this "Tom sucks as a maintainer" crap irks me quite badly.
> If people think he did such a bad job, why can't someone step up as a
> maintainer and try doing a better job?  Seriously, I dare you all.

Thanks.  (I guess :-)

> I'd happily step up if I didn't have so many other things to work on
> and maintain.  But I'd love to see someone pick up the torch, and
> continue developing tla.

Yup.  Of course, that means different things to different people.
In some sense, that's a paraphrase of what the baz effort claimed
to be doing and look where that wound up.

> I atleast don't particulary care about recv, sorry, I simply don't
> want to change VCS each week, this is why CVS is so wonderful.

In a saner world, revc would not be such a separate thing as it
is at the moment.

Rather, from the Arch perspective, you can think of it as a solid
replacement for certain subsystems in tla.  It enables, in a very
clean way, many of the improvements (namespace, performance, etc.)
people have demanded.  It is a straightforward matter to port the
missing stuff from tla to it --- it'd arguably cost less than
Canonical is spending on its alternative approaches (and wind up
with superior results).  There is a seemless migration path 
available there, no different from incremental releases of tla.

It is true that revc is independently useful and deserves to also
be preserved as an isolated component.

And it is true that, revc aside, a heck of a lot of value could
be preserved and enhanced just by conservative management of the
existing tla codebase.

I'd kinda like to see someone step in, too -- but: what would be
their motive?  What's their incentive?  What's their reward?
What can users count on?  What qualifications should they display?


-t