Re: [ITP] FUSE 2.8
On Jul 23 00:23, Bill Zissimopoulos wrote: > On 7/22/16, 12:56 PM, Adrien JUND wrote: > > > >For information on your last release: curl -u "username" > >https://api.github.com/repos/billziss-gh/winfsp/releases > >=> winfsp-0.14.16197.msi - "download_count": 24 > > This is beginning to feel a bit weird. You seem to be rather obsessed with > how many users my project has. Hint: GitHub is not the primary place where > I make binary releases. > > >You seem to also don't know how many people use it. > > :-D > > Ok, I will make sure to contact you next time I need to read web server > stats. Guys, no idea what's up between you, but this discussion is gross. Here's an idea: You both slap yourself and start talking to each other. For the Windows *and* Cygwin world it would be *much* preferrable if you work together and create a single, unified FUSE concept, rather than having two projects doing almost, but not entirely, the same thing, Worse, given that FUSE only makes sense if user-space filesystems exist, we now have two FUSE concepts with a disjunct set of user-space drivers. Great :( My interest in both of your projects has just dwindled considerably. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [ITP] FUSE 2.8
On 7/23/16, 3:40 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >no idea what's up between you, but this discussion is gross... > >My interest in both of your projects has just dwindled considerably. Corinna, understood. I think this may have been the point. I was planning to work for a solution for how to have multiple *-fuse packages coexist based on Marco’s great answer. If you do not believe there is any interest any more please let me know. Bill
Re: [ITP] FUSE 2.8
On Jul 23 16:43, Bill Zissimopoulos wrote: > On 7/23/16, 3:40 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > > >no idea what's up between you, but this discussion is gross... > > > >My interest in both of your projects has just dwindled considerably. > > Corinna, understood. I think this may have been the point. So you quoted my knee-jerk reaction but missed to quote the *real* point of my mail. Fixed that for you: > > Here's an idea: You both slap yourself and start talking to each other. > > > > For the Windows *and* Cygwin world it would be *much* preferrable if you > > work together and create a single, unified FUSE concept, rather than > > having two projects doing almost, but not entirely, the same thing, > > Worse, given that FUSE only makes sense if user-space filesystems exist, > > we now have two FUSE concepts with a disjunct set of user-space drivers. > I was planning to work for a solution for how to have multiple *-fuse > packages coexist based on Marco’s great answer. Which is not the answer I'd expected since it completely ignores the part about "talking to each other", "single FUSE concept" and "collaboration". > If you do not believe > there is any interest any more please let me know. I was talking about *my* interest. Naturally I'm not speaking for the entire group of maintainers. I wouldn't block a package if there's no good reason like licensing problems or a package completly ignoring collision with other, existing packages. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [ITP] FUSE 2.8
On 7/23/16, 10:48 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >So you quoted my knee-jerk reaction but missed to quote the *real* point >of my mail. Fixed that for you: > >> > Here's an idea: You both slap yourself and start talking to each >>other. >> > >> > For the Windows *and* Cygwin world it would be *much* preferrable if >>you >> > work together and create a single, unified FUSE concept, rather than >> > having two projects doing almost, but not entirely, the same thing, >> > Worse, given that FUSE only makes sense if user-space filesystems >>exist, >> > we now have two FUSE concepts with a disjunct set of user-space >>drivers. > >> I was planning to work for a solution for how to have multiple *-fuse >> packages coexist based on Marco’s great answer. > >Which is not the answer I'd expected since it completely ignores the >part about "talking to each other", "single FUSE concept" and >"collaboration". Corinna, I apologize to you and the list for not being on my best behavior. However… I *have* contributed to Dokany. Despite the fact that my own project is independent and not a Dokan fork (and has a completely different design/architecture), a couple of days ago I suggested on their mailing list that I would still work with them. The events of the last couple of days changed my mind. I work on my project(s) because I can and because I find that it is fun, even when I am debugging for 2 days why the LazyWriter hangs in some obscure kernel corner. If it gets too political it stops being fun. If I am forced to work on something I would rather not, it stops being fun too. I want to contribute to Cygwin, because I have been a user since the early 2000’s and because I cannot live on Windows without it. I thought I had something to contribute after all this time. Unfortunately it looks like the price of admission may be higher than I am willing to pay at this time. Thank you and regards, Bill
