[PARPORT] Re: [OT] util-linux-2.9p

Michael K. Johnson (johnsonm@redhat.com)
Fri, 07 May 1999 16:04:50 -0400

Andrea Arcangeli writes:
>Excuse me but I never NEVER seen you on linux-parport in one year of
>lp developing.

I am listed as the owner of the tunelp package within the tunelp
package. Whether I am subscribed to that mailing list is irrelevant.

>So I updated the thing myself because nobody was doing that, that's the
>only reason.

I'm not telling you not to work on it. I'm saying that I found it rude
for you to *take it over* without so much as a word sent to me.

>I don't remeber and I really don't think to have said you to go away.

Sorry, mea culpa, I don't think you actually used those words. That
was just the impression I got. For you to say "I didn't know you were
the maintainer" is hard for me to understand -- there are certainly
copyright statements in there, which seems to me to be a statement,
in default of a claim to the contrary, that I'm the maintainer.

>because I instead would be happy if you would merge my tunelp in your tree
>and continue to be the maintainer in the future.

Sending me diffs would be a lot more polite than telling me to go get
your tree and work it out myself... Do you tell Linus to go get your
version of the kernel and patch in your changes?

>But if you'll agree to
>continue to maintain tunelp, I suggest you to stay tuned on linux-parport
>with Tim and Philip and me.

How about either sending me patches or making a polite request for me to
transfer maintenance status officially to you?

I am happy to continue to maintain it, just send me patches. I'd even
consider officially handing over the maintainer hat to you, although
it's hard for me to do that when you refuse to be polite about it. I'm
human, after all, and while I recognize that I should show complete
disinterest in the future of software that I wrote, well, I can't.

>Also knowing you are the maintainer will help to avoid future mistakes ;).
>Finally excuse me if I have not asked you before releasing my tunelp but
>as just said in my mind there was written that tunelp wasn't maintained.

It was maintained in the past at EVERY previous point where it needed
changes. The maintainer's job isn't necessarily to write every new line
of code, it's far more importantly to integrate patches and integrate
releases. That's what I do for procps -- a lot of the new code from
version to version (the great majority) is written by other people,
I'm just the clearinghouse. I do request that people send patches, not
whole new versions. I think that's a reasonable request. That is
considered generally polite behavior.

I didn't mean to bring this up again. I would keep it private except
that it's a general reminder to folks -- please, it's polite not to take
things over without making at least some attempt to contact the original
is GPL-licensed, so you are within your rights. However, we are still a
community that is built on trust, and ripping people's pet projects away
from them without so much as a by-your-leave tears down that trust.


"Magazines all too frequently lead to books and should be regarded by the
 prudent as the heavy petting of literature." -- Fran Lebowitz
 Linux Application Development http://www.redhat.com/~johnsonm/lad/

-- To unsubscribe, send mail to: linux-parport-request@torque.net --
-- with the single word "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. --

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Fri 07 May 1999 - 16:05:28 EDT