This is part of the issue I've had with 9front. If there are valid reasons for things to disappear or not be used, that's OK. But please document them and provide rationale/evidence for their removal. That way, even if another group chooses not to remove those items, they can learn from other teams' decision making. This is especially imperative for file system stability, for those that have not had trouble with Fossil, but need to understand that it is problematic enough to be pulled from 9front. How was the lack-of-stability tested? To what degree was it tested? etc. 

D


On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 11:14 AM Lucio De Re <lucio.dere@gmail.com> wrote:
What makes you think I want Fossil back in 9front? I suggested that the sources could be included in the distribution, so they would not fork-rot as they are doing presently. It's always been the case that the Plan 9 distribution included "broken" sources that could not be compiled without external support, but were interesting enough to be published. That changed some when Alef was dropped and in fact I saved the Alef development stuff and ported it to 3ed and 4ed because I disagreed with the decision. Note that I made a sweeping generalisation, for simplicity, much was discarded between 2ed and 4ed, and I find all that quite regrettable.

I am certain that Cinap had good reasons for removing Fossil, but I'm not sure you have painted the entire picture for this audience. No matter, of course, 9front will be what 9front will be.

I'm not going to argue with the semantic subtleties of "bad" as you interpret it, but I will privately consider your judgement and interpret your postings with a bias parallel to the one you have displayed toward me so far.

And I will not go away. Not by choice.

Lucio.

On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 4:37 PM Jacob Moody <moody@posixcafe.org> wrote:
On 5/15/24 04:02, Lucio De Re wrote:
> I have asked precisely NOTHING and have only pointed out the consequences of omitting sources from the 9front distribution because it leads to undesirable divisions.

I'm just trying to correct the misinformation you stated.
When you call the decision to drop fossil "bad", your email reads as a persuasive argument for why things should change.
I was in turn explaining why this is not happening, and if someone wanted that to change what would need to happen.

>
> I do find it tiresome that you keep ascribing intentions to me that may well reflect precisely how YOU would feel and react in my position. I assure I am nothing like that and I'm sure my history on 9fans for the past 20+ years would reflect that. But then again, people have abandoned 9fans in the past for reasons not dissimilar from these; I can read the undercurrent ("because you are asking for other people to maintain your software for you for free"), I am not impolite enough to respond in kind.

Are your intentions not to persuade someone in the 9front world that fossil is worth adding back to the system?



------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tad3dc0c93039a7d2-M487e5306116b96ed7c5b7052
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription


--
Lucio De Re
2 Piet Retief St
Kestell (Eastern Free State)
9860 South Africa

Ph.: +27 58 653 1433
Cell: +27 83 251 5824