[SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports

[Vizion]

On Friday 21 October 2005 20:25,  the author Mark Linimon contributed to the 
dialogue on-
 Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports: 

>On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 01:59:50AM +0200, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
>> The build cluster automation shouldn't limit the utility of ports.
>> BTW, are the scripts publicly available? I don't see anything on
>> http://pointyhat.freebsd.org/ or
>> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/
>> If I wanted to update the build cluster code, where would I get it?
>
>If you don't understand the extent of that code, I can see how easy it
>might be for you to assume that it's easy to work with.
>
>Please see ports/Tools/portbuild.  Also you will be rewriting the
>marcusom tinderbox at tinderbox.marcuscom.com as well.  I do not know
>under what license the FreshPorts code is.
>
>> portsmon is your software, and keeping it hostage to changes in
>> ports is IMO unethical.

As I have pointed out elsewhere I think Mark's accusation is both unfair and 
totally unwarranted - it only diverts attentions from some good point that he 
makes.
>
>What I am _implying_ is that a lot of work has to be done to make it
>work, 

II think everyone knows that

>and that I _personally_ am not going to make it a priority to 
>rewrite it based on someone's pet blue-sky idea.

OK but I do not think it helps not to recognize that there are difficulties 
with the existing system and maybe if you appeared more accepting of the 
critics of the system and less inclined to personalize the issue maybe those 
of us who see things differently to you would see you as a potential ally 
rather than an obstacle to change.
>
>The fact that you would charge someone like me who has put literally
>HUNDREDS of hours into that system -- for his own personal internal
>movtivation, there are no extrinsic rewards -- with being unethical is
>a complete and total outrage.  As far as I am concerned this gives me
>complete permission to just ignore anything you have to say after this
>point.  You have apparently missed a key underlying principle of this
>project: that it's a _volunteer_ project and you cannot _compel_ a
>volunteer to go work on anything that they are not personally interested
>in working on.

I do not think anyone has suggested you should do that - but I hear that 
wondering if that is what they think  is painful to you.
>
>If you don't like this, the code is available under BSDL.  Grab a
>copy, install it yourself, rewrite it, run it, and claim your solution
>obsoletes mine.  That's the "BSD way".  But if you insist that I do all
>that just on your whim, you're going to be out of luck.  (And, along the
>way, you might find out how much work is already going into maintaining
>it -- work, like much of what goes into the ports collection, that goes
>on, unheralded, behind the scenes -- unlike all the bikeshedding like
>this that goes on in public and what people seem so impressed by,
>despite the fact that, in general, nothing actually gets accomplished).

Public discussion do0es achieve something -- maybe if there was more 
discussion before any coding was done we would not have limitations 
hard-wired into code in a way that limits freebsd's ability to meet future 
unforeseen needs. I see this discussion as a valuable contribution by all 
participants to freebsd.
>
>I simply don't have the free time to rewrite it _and_ work on all the
>other priorities to which I have currently, and in the past, put so much
>time into on this project -- ones, as far as I am concerned, will have
>a much higher impact on the usability of the system.

So maybe you could find ways of using your knowledge of the existing system to 
indicate a whether partial re-engineering is possible or a clean slate 
approach is required

>
>Before you get all the above done, I might even be able to _prototype_
>some kind of better search mechanism and solve the more useful part of
>the problem.  To me, it would clearly take far less time to do so.

I agree - but I do not see it as more than a solution of a subsidiary problem 
rather than the core problem. That does not imply that a better search 
mechanism would not be valuable for the short to medium term.
>
>However, as far as I'm concerned, you've destroyed your own credibility
>with what I've quoted above, 

I hope you will not let Mark's ill-chosen and unjustified accusation divert 
you from contributing your constructive contributions to this debate. The 
issues for the community are more important that our individual struggles.

david



-- 
40 yrs navigating and computing in blue waters.
English Owner & Captain of British Registered 60' bluewater Ketch S/V Taurus.
 Currently in San Diego, CA. Sailing bound for Europe via Panama Canal after 
completing engineroom refit.