Re: debiandoc-sgml table support
Ian Jackson <ian@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> (Background: Ardo sent me some private email - which I won't post
> without his permission - answering some of my questions. I think that
> because of the nature of my reply, I ought to post it publicly.)
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> I still disagree with you about the sgml() calls. I think those are
> morally equivalent to function declarations/definitions, rather than
> actual code. I also still have an aesthetic loathing of the new
> layout.
Actually, when all the start/end function pair (and their common code)
have been moved to the common module, there probably is less need to
keep the sgml() calls separated from the called functions. So ...
> But ...
>
> If you say you've changed most of the code anyway then I can see why
> you reformatted it. I have to say that the code mostly looked the
> same to me apart from formatting and this breaking-out-of-subroutines
> question, but since diff can't tell me anything useful I'll have to
> believe you.
>
> So, in that case, I'd like to apologise for my overreaction to your
> changes, which was it seems based on an error in my perception of the
> facts, to wit how much other work had been done.
Apology accepted.
> If you want an excuse, I can offer the fact that the last piece of
> software I'd `lent' (always intended to be temporary, in that case)
> was dpkg, and when I got it back to try to work on it the build system
> had been made braindead beyond belief.
No excuse needed. No hard feelings.
> However, for the general point, I still think that the original author
> of a piece of software has the right to rant and rave about things
> they think subsequent modifiers have done badly, and I still think
> that they're entitled to call the software `theirs' in some sense.
>
> That's not to say I don't think people ought to have the _right_ to
> modify code in ways the original author(s) object to; I just think
> that it should generally be avoided if reasonably possible, both
> because it keeps people happy and seems less rude, and also because a
> lack of wholesale changes makes it easier to apply patches and see
> changes between versions, etc.
>
> Ardo asked why I immediately made public comment, rather than
> contacting the maintainer privately first. Mainly, because I usually
> prefer doing things in public, including washing dirty linen.
> Certainly if someone had a similar problem with something I'd done, I
> wouldn't expect them to just mail me about it. I also feel that with
> most issues (especially `political' ones) it's helpful to get the
> opinions of third parties.
Then you and I are simply different in this.
> Ardo made a comment about the end result being improved documentation,
> which should appeal to me as project leader. Of course, with my
> project leader hat on there is nothing wrong with what Ardo has done,
> and I applaud his effort and energy. However, with my ornery and
> temperamental `artistic' code style programmer hat on, I'm touchy
> about people editing my software.
>
> Ardo, I'll talk to you some more about my proposed table support,
> possibly with some code.
Ok. Every help is welcome. :-)
> I hope that I have managed to unruffle the feathers of at least Ardo.
> If not, I hope that he'll tell me what more I could do or say that
> might help, or at least that he'll be willing to work together with
> me.
As stated above already: No hard feelings (there never were) and I'm
more than willing to work with you. :-)
> It would be nice if I've unruffled others too, but otherwise I suppose
> they'll just have to deal with it ...
>
> Ian.
As far as I'm concerned this matter can be closed, so let's get back
to writing documentation and developing software. :-)
Thanks,
Ardo
--
Ardo van Rangelrooij
home email: avrangel@flevonet.nl, ardo@debian.org
home page: http://www.tip.nl/users/ardo.van.rangelrooij
PGP fp: 3B 1F 21 72 00 5C 3A 73 7F 72 DF D9 90 78 47 F9
Reply to: