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.buddenha...@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. _______________________________________________ mc-devel mailing list https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
