From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Denholm Subject: Re: [PATCH] remote-helpers: point at their upstream repositories Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 01:24:23 +0000 Message-ID: <20140518012423.GA31087@debian> References: <20140516084126.GB21468@sigill.intra.peff.net> <537693aee4fdd_3e4812032fcc@nysa.notmuch> <20140517021117.GA29866@debian> <5376f27b74d9f_66768eb3048f@nysa.notmuch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Junio C Hamano , Jeff King , git@vger.kernel.org To: Felipe Contreras X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun May 18 03:24:38 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Wlpq9-0004dS-MK for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sun, 18 May 2014 03:24:38 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751877AbaERBY2 (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 May 2014 21:24:28 -0400 Received: from mail-wg0-f47.google.com ([74.125.82.47]:52265 "EHLO mail-wg0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751843AbaERBY1 (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 May 2014 21:24:27 -0400 Received: by mail-wg0-f47.google.com with SMTP id x12so6506432wgg.30 for ; Sat, 17 May 2014 18:24:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=oX0sAcyIBDiBOpyF21XAhUsKCngXUxHVD7clUv4lNhM=; b=fQJcYp0fS5L/Yzu1E7O+W8PBsD1zsHrmORaubuImzSYKAHxzwwNa8zqToLuQpBxDEp CjDcCy5HlBoqi3kq7zFpmuvkW8LmkkIwRn+cnN9y3K9wgLdswTYXX2ssreT23wtxBi1j wNPe/UzxlHJEvi4/RPKrCT4XhOH1s0617FFwzgBkaRrulUnrJtRJCgnIDot+g4c/EtxP jxYLGP1YbaN2EaFF7mHsE/ovsO16SGxYa2PWIYF+zDMF4tZvBPUVTd/4doW4+uQJqEab XffU4SNrrAd1XLe30Z+bWYI/Tv+ed4L45gWrhZmI0DkUr764OPQKKFT4bgpPpmEuyzni aO1w== X-Received: by 10.194.246.234 with SMTP id xz10mr553866wjc.77.1400376266008; Sat, 17 May 2014 18:24:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from debian ([2a04:1980:3100:1aac:21b:21ff:feda:4cbe]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id em5sm6556336wic.23.2014.05.17.18.24.24 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 17 May 2014 18:24:25 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5376f27b74d9f_66768eb3048f@nysa.notmuch> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Felipe Contreras wrote: > James Denholm wrote: > > On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 05:39:42PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > > (...) I would venture to say you have never made a package in your > > > life. > > > > And you have, Felipe? Let us see the years of experience you surely have > > in the field. > > As a matter of fact, yes I've written many packages, for Debian, Fedora, > ArchLinux, and others. Even Windows installers. I'd hardly say that a few PKGBUILDs count. I've written some myself, not hard to do. That said, if I had realised you were going to discuss such a trivial thing - _making_ packages rather than _maintaining_ them in a repo - I'd have dismissed your statement as mere idiotic vitriol. Do you honestly think that Junio has _never made a package?_ Never, on any of the systems he's ever touched, run makepkg or debuild or whathaveyou? I could be wrong here, but I'm fairly sure that Junio is a *nix software developer of some kind or another. You know, given that he's the maintainer of git, kinda might be the case. And I really doubt that any *nix dev, _anywhere_, could have _any_ sort of success without looking sideways once or twice at a package builder, given that pre-release homebrewing of expected packages is only an absolutely critical part of testing. Come on, man. Don't be silly. > But that's a red herring. Even if was the worst packager in history, > that doesn't make Junio's decision any more correct. No, but it would render your bizarre, tantrum-like accusations as generally baseless. I mean, I don't think anyone actually puts weight on them anyway, but hey, never hurts to shine a spotlight on nonsense. > > > The fact that you think packagers of git would simply package > > > git-remote-hg/bzr as well is pretty appalling. > > > > It's not an outlandish thought, in fact, I'd suggest it as probable - > > provided that they find the projects to be stable and of high quality. > > Do you want to bet? Not a betting man. However, ignoring that for a moment, I doubt we'd be able to agree on checks and balances for the case where git-remote-hg/bzr were rejected due to the code being of poor quality or unstable. So no, I won't bet, because you hold your own work and opinions as sacrosanct and infallible. > > You, or someone else, might have to tap them on the shoulder and play > > nice to _ensure_ they know about them (after all, we all know that > > packagers _never_ read READMEs, do they), but you're capable of that, > > I'm sure. > > In my experience packagers scratch their own itches, and if > git-remote-hg/bzr are not their itch, I don't see why any amount of > nice poking would make them package them. Some other packager would have > to do it, not the Git packagers. If there's a demand, Felipe, and the build process is sane, I can't see why they wouldn't. Package maintainers are aware they provide a service to their distributions. If you really want, poke them _with_ the majority of the necessary work done, hand them the PKGBUILDs/whathaveyou yourself. Pre-scratch the itch if you really feel they won't care.