[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFS: codelite



On Monday 17,August,2009 04:46 AM, George Danchev wrote:
> [...]
> 
>>>> I'm not
>>>> actually familiar with Code::Blocks, but I do feel that it would be nice
>>>
>>> Roughly Code::Blocks resembles MSVC face and look, and in my humble
>>> opinion intentionally targets that user base. Nothing wrong with that of
>>> course.
>>>
>>>> to have all of them in Debian (and Ubuntu) to provide more choice to the
>>>> end-user. There are bound to be those not satisfied with Code::Blocks
>>>> and love CodeLite[1], and vice versa.
>>>
>>> I'm afraid that if we go that way, we could flood the Debian archive even
>>> more with lots of large and hard to maintain packages which tend to be
>>> neglected in not so distant future.
>>
>> Perhaps a team should be started up to maintain different IDEs' packages
>> then? I'm sure that would help avoid a situation where the packages are
>> neglected.
> 
> Yes, that would be a more fault tolerant approach. However, I do not intend to 
> take part of teams around any kind of IDE's, at least not for the time being.
> 
>>>> Picking one would probably create
>>>> unnecessary hostility between the two IDEs' communities.
>>>
>>> ... or instead of provoking hostility this could help competition between
>>> these alternatives. I really do like competition and multiple
>>> alternatives to choose from, however these packages are large and complex
>>> and would probably consume a lot of maintainers time while fighting the
>>> bug log, therefore I see nothing wrong to apply Occam razor when
>>> selecting amongst such expensive alternatives, maintenance-wise.
>>
>> I understand your point about the maintainers' time, but I don't really
>> agree with your whole idea of this helping competition. Choosing only
>> one to enter the archives would necessarily mean omitting the other.
> 
> Right on. Since one of them is more mature and with larger user base, it seems 
> more reasonable to me to invest my reviewing time with it. Furthermore, 
> CodeBlocks has already been looked at by several parties.
> 
>> Rather, if we can find one person who's interested in CodeLite, and
>> another interested in Code::Blocks, why not allow them to maintain their
>> own packages independently (or collaboratively maintain both) rather
>> than alienating one in favour of the other? It's their own time and
>> effort they're investing after all.
> 
> I'm afraid we would need the same amount of sponsor's time too to cover both 
> teams who already spent their own time preparing the packages. If we fail to 
> meet the former, the latter would be a needless waste of `their own' time... 
> remember the packages are large and complex, hence the waste would be 
> proportional.
Ah yes, I forgot about sponsor time, sorry.

> [...]
>> Does that mean I should keep firing off RFS emails at intervals to look
>> for reviewers?
> 
> Actually, I don't have a good receipt for finding more reviewers other than 
> poking -mentors list from time to time. See, that is the tricky part: since 
> I'm much more familiar and prepared to deal with codeblocks package, I would 
> need a significant amount of time to get around with codelite (it is not just 
> to take a look at debian/ directory;-), hence I would think trice what would 
> be the best course to take before even touch the keyboard ;-) This means that 
> I'd be very happy if another sponsor takes time to review and hopefully upload 
> codelite, while I'll take care of codeblocks when packagers enter the scene, 
> once again. Nonetheless, I promise to take a look at codelite too at some 
> point, but can't promise to upload.
I'll continue poking the list then. Thanks for your time. :-)


-- 
Kind regards,
Chow Loong Jin

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: