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