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

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
( 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

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

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

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