Re: [Gimp-developer] Please migrate to GitHub/CMake

["Joao S. O. Bueno" <gwidion gmail com>]

On 8 May 2017 at 09:47, gregory grey <ror6ax gmail com> wrote:

I can get why are you trying to poke Alexandre on that - you are on an absolute
"shoot the messenger" weird thing there.


> In my experience "ain't broke" is a standard mantra of organizations
> stuck in the past.
>
> It's a tent-pole phrase that does not explain anything, and justifies
> whatever practices you want it to justify.
>
> I say waiting 3 weeks for build under some platform is broken as hell,
> given you shoot for mutiplatform-ity.

So, as a recap - the initial "no." is not the only answer here -
Pippin did expand it
to a manageable way to try todo something about it, if someone is
really willing to.

The original "no" reply from Alexandre is the absolute to be expected
answer if you
jut read this thread subject. "Can you please change ([thesetwof core
technologies your project
depend on just because they don't have enough bling-ding (github) ] ,
and then demand on the
human-resource-starved, volunteer only project, thatthe change is made
or at least
started immediately. Sorry, 'no' is among the most polite answer one could get
with such a request.




> @Alexandre - what exactly is your point here? I did not build Gimp
> from source, ever.
>
> I'm confident there is nothing in your Makefiles that is beyond human
> understanding.
>
>  Again, since you said explicitly you are not making infra decisions,
> can I talk to the one/s who do? on the

You are already, and you did get answers regarding more practical aspects of
a possible cmake move, and a not-so-possible github move. Alexanre was
just first
to answer - with an answer that correctly roughly mirrored the
collective short answer the
he and the other collaborators for this project would like to be given.


> For sake of absolutely sane and productive discussion. If you want of course.
Do you realise this is a volunteer-maintained project and people
involved here will
be more happy doing codding and other tasks than "having a productive discussion
on whether it would be theoretically better to change to cmake"?
You've got a full
reply on that - that is: get one to have at least a proof-of-concept
build that migrates and
simplifies the current process.  The existing contributors won't stop
what they are doing
now because an e-mail not-so-politely  labeled  "Please migrate to
GitHub/Cmake"  came
along.

Try the same e-mail with "I've managed to build GIMP with cmake and could drop
these 10000 lines of configuraton files - it already works on Linux
and Windows, Mac pending, here is the branch:... "

As for github, it is really irrelevant - the needed functionality from
the code management aspect
is provided by the (free software) git, regardless of the host of the
accepted main tree - what people disregard to see is that despite all
its popularity, github is just a normal privately owned commercial
player - that can change its use-terms, conduct, or go bankrupt any
time. (All of which did happen to previous
"point of reference" host for free software projects "Source Forge").
We have our servers setup and
independently running - and keeping control of the URLs where the
project is hosted mean we
can change that if need arises.
Moreover, anyone can use git functionality to create their forks on
github, and make something useful
with that - to the point of having patches using that side code-review
tools ready to be looked at and reviewed by current GIMP-commiters,
and if accepted, all it takes one command on the shell to
send that patch in a way it can be officially used in GIMP - in
contrast with one of the developers
"pressing a button" on github (wow, so much gain for a fancy prison).


Now, send more e-mails with personal offenses if you need - or try to
get GIMP to build with
cmake and showing it is indeed more maintainable.  :-)

best regards,

   joao
>