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

[Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald buddenhagen gmx de>]

On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 02:08:37PM +0300, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> 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:
> > > 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 think you are being a tad overly optimistic here.
just for some perspective: a year ago or so i went through the effort of
un-botching the previous import. more than half a decade after the fact.
at this rate, there is no reason whatsoever to think that the infra will
still be even there when somebody finally feels like doing a migration
(midnight-commander.org is owned privately by slavaz).

also, the longer you wait, the more work gets duplicated, and the harder
it will be to merge the data sets in a useful way.

that's why i would expect some serious commitment to a migration from
somebody who wants to take over with the blessing of the previous
maintainers.

> > > 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"?
there is no contradiction whatsoever in that. i can review and discuss
despite full awareness that i won't be able to put a final stamp of
approval under it.

> Come on, time for productive actions - are *you* ready to be a
> maintainer?
no. exactly because i lack the time (or personal motivation) to make the
commitment. it's not like i haven't been tempted during a decade of
lurking.