On 5/9/26 07:31, Lucio De Re wrote: > > On 2026/05/09 06:03, [email protected] wrote: >> 9front and 4e/9Legacy are separate, independent communities with no >> obligation to support each other, but it’s always encouraging to see >> someone willing to help both. Yaroslav, thank you for your efforts. > > Let me add my own gratitude. > > I think this is a great approach and I have been considering the > approach myself, I just don't happen to have the skills and persistence > to accomplish as much as Yaroslav did. > > As for those who now seem to want to preserve the "purity" of 9front, > let me say that I entirely understand where you come from, specially > from the perspective of supporting what necessarily resemble > regressions. On the other hand, it is equally unfair to suggest that > those of us that appreciate both the spirit of legacy and the pragmatism > of 9front (and the now dated pragmatism of legacy and the modern spirit > of 9front) should not be encouraged to pursue yet another development > direction. To me, personally, convergence toward the best from all > sources is well worth the price, as Yaroslav suggests, of needing > frequent (ideally not frequent, but even then...) rebasing.
No one here is discouraging alternative paths, if anything I encourage folks to do this work if they want to maintain git9 for other systems. These paths can be explored entirely without involvement of 9front, in fact I'd say we're there already, the fact that you can pull in git9 on 9legacy with this diff is proof of that. What is being asked for here is not some permission for this alternative path however, what is being asked is for 9front to take on the maintenance burden of there being multiple paths. These are two disjoint things. When you are asking someone (or a group of people) to make their lives more difficult/inconvenient (like using 30 year old GNU utils or ifs= footguns) in order to make your life easier (keeping the git9 9legacy diff smaller) you are asking us to do a favor for you. This is why my whole comment at the start was that this PR felt inconsiderate/rude to me. Am I incorrect in seeing the dynamic like this? It's possible, I am just trying to convey how things come across to me. For 9front, git is our update mechanism, if it breaks we're in some pretty annoying trouble. As Dan and Charles pointed out, this is a bit further bothersome because there was not even really any initial thought in to "which of these 9front improvements can we take back to 9legacy". Or at least have a discussion about which of these changes are for the better and which are perhaps not super necessary. Also as a (potentially) related statement. 9front has taken a policy of no computer generated code for any contributions going forward, this includes generative AI or large language models of course. - moody ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Td167d7e8cebadcc4-M7bef7195ded397f91fd87f52 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
