At 12:40 AM 9/24/2009 +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote: >Come on phillip, no one is "plotting" against you. Perhaps this is a language issue. When I said, "if Tarek is too busy projecting hidden plots onto everything I say and do," I meant that you were acting as if I were plotting against *you*, not the other way around. (For example, you described one of my proposals as "suspicious", in a context that made it appear you were concerned it would undermine your plans for Distribute.) However, I find it "suspicious" myself, that, rather than actually address *any* of the substantial issues I brought up, you chose to re-argue points I'm not even disputing. For example, is it really necessary to make *every* post of yours that mentions me include an essay on how long it's been since the last setuptools release? As I said below, I don't see how that's remotely relevant to the value of my contributions... but somehow you find a way to bring it up constantly. Do you feel so guilty about forking that you need to continually re-justify yourself? If you're doing it on my account, do please stop. AFAIR, I haven't said a negative thing about your fork since it got off the ground, and have in fact said many positive things about it. Indeed, the only negative thing I would currently say about it, is that your characterization of it as a "friendly" fork is not consistent with your public behavior and demeanor towards me. Once again, I'd like for the badgering to stop. Thanks. At 12:40 AM 9/24/2009 +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote: >You didn't maintain setuptools for a year while people where begging >you to do bug fixes. You blessed Ian and Jim to take over but they >are too busy to do it . I even sent them a mail on my side to try to >convince them. > >So we asked you to bless someone else that was active (not in >particular me as your mail seem to say) but you did not. So we >forked. And people were pissed off at you. (Which I am sorry about) > >If a project is not maintained and if the maintainer does not open >it to other maintainers, that s the way to go . > >And the fact that I took the lead of that fork doesn't mean I am >offended because you did not bless me to maintain setuptools. It >just means that I want to move forward and have a working tool for python 3. > >So let me make it clear that when you say "Tarek appears" it is >something I have never said but rather something you are thinking >like being the truth. > >Now for the Distribute work , your patches are very welcome. It s a >community project. > >>On Sep 23, 2009 10:47 PM, "P.J. Eby" >><<mailto:pje at telecommunity.com>pje at telecommunity.com> wrote: >> >>At 07:00 PM 9/23/2009 +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote: > > While it's >>great to have Philipp being part of o... >>Here's what actually happened, if anyone cares. Tarek and friends >>announced a fork of setuptools. I reviewed the work and saw that >>-- for the most part -- I was happy with it, and opined as how I >>might be willing to bless the the "package inquisition" team as >>official maintainers of the 0.6 branch of setuptools, so that I >>could work on the fun bits I've long planned for 0.7, but never >>felt free to start on while there was so much still needing to be done on 0.6. >> >>However, just as I mentioned this, and suggested an option for what >>I could do that would be helpful to his Distribute 0.7 project as >>well as various other tools (e.g. implementing some of Jim Fulton's >>long-requested features for better modularization of setuptools), >>Tarek accused me of somehow trying to undermine his plans. >> >>In addition, it appears Tarek was also offended by my earlier >>statement that there were only a few people in the Python community >>who had *already* earned my implicit trust to not only hack on >>setuptools unsupervised, but also to take over its *future* >>direction and BDFL-ship. (For example, Jim Fulton and Ian Bicking.) >> >>Tarek, however, appears to have taken this to mean that I >>personally thought he was an incompetent programmer or something >>(when I actually had no opinion one way or the other), and ever >>since he has taken to levelling potshots like the above at me on a >>semi-regular basis. >> >>I've tried to ignore this and play nice, because he is actually >>working on this stuff and I am not. But it's hard for me to >>actually give any help in practice, if Tarek is too busy projecting >>hidden plots onto everything I say and do. >> >>If you read Tarek's distutils-sig posts, it appears my >>already-existing trust in Ian and Jim was not only a personal >>insult to Tarek, but also a plot to ensure that nobody with any >>time to do so would ever work on setuptools, just as my excitement >>about working on setuptools again was a plot to steal thunder from his fork. >> >>All I want is for good stuff to happen for setuptools users and >>Python users in general, so I don't think all the suspicion and >>backbiting is merited. I certainly don't appreciate it, and I >>would like it to stop. It also isn't even relevant to the thread, >>since my lack of work on setuptools says exactly zero about the >>merits or lack thereof of Tarek's proposals for the distutils! >> >>Hell, I *support* the bulk of Tarek's setup.cfg proposal, and don't >>even object to him Pronouncing it or cutting off the >>discussion! My only issue on Python-Dev was his inaccurate >>implication that it was a SIG consensus rather than a pronouncement >>on it. There is and was no need for any of this to get personal, >>and I have continually strived to keep my posts here and >>distutils-sig civil, even when I didn't feel like being civil in >>response to Tarek's jabs. I have in fact bent over backwards to be >>*nice* to Tarek, because he seemed so damn sensitive about >>everything. Apparently, however, this does not actually help things. :-(
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4