----- Original Message -----
> [...]
> I will briefly list my perception of the claims & evidence at play here.
Its a bit sad you've chosen this path of continued arguing Frank. While
I'm trying to find a compromise solution, you're just repeating the same
limited line of thinking (stooping to insults now too, certainly I don't
intentionally spread FUD - that's really disappointing to read).
Most bewildering of all is why? - you ignore all of the work to create a
new independently releasable tree with complete git history, a new model
of testing you've requested, provide no reason why this tree wont work -
and focus repeatedly on the final git-rm in the original tree (which is
simply the final stage of building the new tree from the original bits).
As I said privately to you some time ago, this tree will be successful -
please do not perceive this as just some git-rm action. If there was an
across-tree-git-mv command, I certainly would have used it over git-rm.
We've got many people clamouring for the functionality here - please take
it and run with it in the direction you see fit (while I don't agree with
your chosen methods here, I certainly support giving you the choice).
The contents of this new tree are intended to help us all forward without
this kind of ongoing arguing. It has so many good advantages - like the
mitigation of code encumbrance risk, giving more opportunity for the non-
invasive testing you've asked for (but have never helped to provide, I'll
quietly point out), and more opportunity for you to control the directions
this code you've written takes (amongst many other good reasons, IMO). At
no point did I say you *need* to use CMake ... I simply asked the question
and gave my opinion, and pointed out that javascript folks don't tend to
willingly use autoconf. And yeah, same with many of the other points -
there is plenty of misdirection / misunderstanding in your mail.
The big question to me is why do you have a problem with a separate tree
which you maintain and release (with fixes from me, and no doubt others -
especially folks with javascript skills, I hope!), that forms part of the
larger family of PCP trees? [ i.e. http://www.pcp.io/source.html ]
Despite your comments, most of us really just want to get quietly on with
hacking ... I've moved forward on this git tree work to attempt to resolve
this without the lengthy arguing, so I'm extremely disappointed you have
continued down this path. For ... no apparent reason.
> [...]
> I believe the community would benefit from a phone conversation, to
> discuss what happened here and related maintainership role questions.
Sure, I'll tee up the next dev meeting shortly - the three/four monthly
slot is about due. Let's discuss further there.
cheers.
--
Nathan
|