Re: "mc is over!?" - post by Ilia Maslakov on Russian-speaking IT site

[Paul Sokolovsky <pmiscml gmail com>]

Hello,

On Sat, 30 May 2015 11:53:58 +0200
Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald buddenhagen gmx de> wrote:

> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 12:46:08AM +0300, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 May 2015 22:28:15 +0200 "Yury V. Zaytsev"
> > <yury shurup com> wrote:
> > > For example, one could have set up a script to import Trac tickets
> > > into Github Issues. There are many half-way working scripts
> > > floating around, but they need testing and fixing. Last time,
> > > Savannah import into Trac took quite some effort, but it turned
> > > out to be very worthwhile.
> >
> > You again trying to over-complicate. Start from a clean page on
> > github, while invite community to migrate issues from trac to
> > github. Most content on trac from people who gave up on mc long
> > ago. It makes sense to process what active people are interested in
> > and leave old stuff where it is.
> nonsense. the old infrastructure is going to disappear at some point,
> and everything on it will be lost. it is entirely irrelevant that many
> of the people lost interest - most of the issues are still valid, and
> a lot of time went into discussing solutions. it would be plain stupid
> to throw this away, never mind the disregard for other people's work.

I didn't propose to throw it away. I proposed to leave it where it is
for now and work on github issues/patches (which are also
issues/patches, surprise), while ask help from wider community to
migrate issues to github. If/when new maintainers ran out of github
issues, they certainly will look into trac themselves, either at
individual issues, or en-masse migration. The talk is about smooth
start for new maintainers without extraordinary efforts.

> > I have couple of my patches accepted into mc (trivial, yes, it's on
> > a non-trivial thing I stuck due to lack of discussion), so pass one
> > criteria I myself proposed. My maintainership program would be:
> >
> > 1. Tear off all the unmaintainable code.
> see, statements like that make me hope very much that you never get
> direct write access to the repository.

Certainly I'm keen to provide full disclosure of my programme, so
people aren't surprised later. As for being a maintainer, I'm certainly
hope that there will be more suitable people to take that role. But I
was asked would I take maintainership myself, and I provided the
answer.

> > 3. Require patches with good descriptions (including references),
> > try to respond to pull requests quickly with suggestion, close those
> > which weren't got into shape in 1 month as unmaintainable.
> that's a nice plan, but requires a quite substantial committment to
> put into action. which brings us back to yury's conclusions.

So, you started an argument in githib ticket, then came here just to
criticize and repeat "'tis not possible"? Come on, time for productive
actions - are *you* ready to be a maintainer? What's *your*
maintainership plan?



-- 
Best regards,
 Paul                          mailto:pmiscml gmail com