Do Not F**K with Project Maintainers for You Are Crunchy and Taste Good with Tabasco
Thread Index: First message in thread
My reply:
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Sks-devel] Debian binary replacement Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 23:25:20 -0500 From: John Clizbe Reply-To: sks-devel To: sks-devel Sebastian Urbach wrote: > Hi, > > The subject says it all. Please consider the readme file. > > http://key-server.org/sks/ Quoting from the above: > This is called the "because we can" version and is intended to humiliate > and expose the following persons in critical positions and doing little to > nothing about SKS in general or about SKS in Debian with the exception of > lame ass excuses > of course. > > Gold Medal : Christoph Martin / christoph.martin@uni-mainz.de > Silver Medal : Fabio M. Di Nitto / fabbione@fabbione.net > Bronce Medal : John Clizbe / JPClizbe@gingerbear.net > > Congratulations to all of you ! > > > *** Requirements *** > > BDB 5.1 > AMD64 platform > Debian squeeze/wheezy/sid Thank you for the medal. What sort of metal is bronce? Is it the result of being exposed to too much lead as a child? There IS NO SKS VERSION 1.1.4! Yaron will make that decision when it happens, possibly with my input, then I'll probably tag the and roll the release. I'm curious why I'm being dragged into your tantrum with the Debian maintainers. SKS _IS_NOT_ now a Debian-specific project, nor has it it ever been. If you have issues about their packaging, you need to properly address those issues to them. In the past I have sound some Debian patches useful to the project at large and have committed them to the tree, this does not mean I find all patches for Debian useful. Perhaps you misunderstand the role of a maintainer. A maintainer is not some marionette to be danced around patch and 'hg commit' by a few users with an overinflated sense of self-entitlement. A maintainer either writes or evaluates and accepts changes to fix weaknesses or add enhancements to the code. Note: these changes must be workable for all users, not just the self-entitled users of a single distribution on a single hardware architecture. Jens told me about his success with cryptokit-1.5 a couple days after I pushed my own work with 1.3. OCaml is frightening enough to the unitinitated. There is no point adding another build complexity to SKS unless it is a) trivial, or b) worth it. Read the Changlog for cryptokit-1.5. There's not a lot of bang there from 1.3 to 1.5. I have already said, if cryptokit-1.5 can be added easily for *all* SKS users, it will be. I received a single massive patch from Jens modifying SKS's file locations, again, specifically for Debian users. I even sent back to him the tarball contining the patches Debian already used to do this. Then some more smaller patches were received. I have a day job. I have an elderly parent to care for. I haven't had time to fully evaluate the patches I received from Jens. However, I can assure you, if applying them will break an existing SKS user's install, I will have to think LONG and HARD about committing them or whether to pass on them and seek another method. But absolutely none of this has epsilon to do with YOUR deploying SKS now. I'm working on a future SKS release. You mention "a lot of useful patches". Are these the others that Jens provided me or some from your secret development shop? I /really/ hope you're referring to Mike Doty's bdb_stubs.c and Phil Pennock's limit=0 work. If I may offer a wee bit on Internet/FOSS etiquette: If you're going to storm off the playing field with another's football/project, please have the decency to properly fork it and change the name. Please don't go the childish route and think you can just bump the version number. As for your Bronce Medal, I'm sorry, but I cannot accept it. You cite that it is for "doing little to nothing about SKS in general or about SKS in Debian." I do nothing with Debian nor am I required to, I don't use it. As for doing nothing with SKS in general, I've pushed every release since 1.1.0, with 1.1.2 and 1.1.3 being largely my own work. Therefore, I feel I have done too much work to leave me worthy enough for me to claim your medal. Perhaps you could keep it for yourself in honor of your overinflated sense of self-entitlement. Yes, you can build you're own .deb "because we can". However, I sense you are missing who is actually being humiliated. The SKS and Debian maintainers or a user publicly throwing a tantrum for all to see on the Internet? Just as it takes quite a lot to shock and more than most people are capable of to outrage me, it requires much more than a childish outburst of pique to humiliate me. Oh, about your README opening... > This is called the "because we can" version and is [intended to humiliate > and expose the following persons in critical positions] and [doing little > to nothing about SKS in general or about SKS in Debian with the exception > of lame ass excuses of course.] I set off the two parts of the conjunctive phrase being used as an object to is in [square brackets]. With that clarification and reading directly from 'is' to 'doing', as the sentence is constructed, then makes perfect sense. I do believe Jeff Johnson had the best closing response to all of the other replies to your burst of petulance. I include it here by reference. Regards, John Clizbe _______________________________________________ Sks-devel mailing list Sks-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/sks-devel
My reply:
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Sks-devel] Debian binary replacement Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 23:25:20 -0500 From: John Clizbe Reply-To: sks-devel To: sks-devel Sebastian Urbach wrote: > Hi, > > The subject says it all. Please consider the readme file. > > http://key-server.org/sks/ Quoting from the above: > This is called the "because we can" version and is intended to humiliate > and expose the following persons in critical positions and doing little to > nothing about SKS in general or about SKS in Debian with the exception of > lame ass excuses > of course. > > Gold Medal : Christoph Martin / christoph.martin@uni-mainz.de > Silver Medal : Fabio M. Di Nitto / fabbione@fabbione.net > Bronce Medal : John Clizbe / JPClizbe@gingerbear.net > > Congratulations to all of you ! > > > *** Requirements *** > > BDB 5.1 > AMD64 platform > Debian squeeze/wheezy/sid Thank you for the medal. What sort of metal is bronce? Is it the result of being exposed to too much lead as a child? There IS NO SKS VERSION 1.1.4! Yaron will make that decision when it happens, possibly with my input, then I'll probably tag the and roll the release. I'm curious why I'm being dragged into your tantrum with the Debian maintainers. SKS _IS_NOT_ now a Debian-specific project, nor has it it ever been. If you have issues about their packaging, you need to properly address those issues to them. In the past I have sound some Debian patches useful to the project at large and have committed them to the tree, this does not mean I find all patches for Debian useful. Perhaps you misunderstand the role of a maintainer. A maintainer is not some marionette to be danced around patch and 'hg commit' by a few users with an overinflated sense of self-entitlement. A maintainer either writes or evaluates and accepts changes to fix weaknesses or add enhancements to the code. Note: these changes must be workable for all users, not just the self-entitled users of a single distribution on a single hardware architecture. Jens told me about his success with cryptokit-1.5 a couple days after I pushed my own work with 1.3. OCaml is frightening enough to the unitinitated. There is no point adding another build complexity to SKS unless it is a) trivial, or b) worth it. Read the Changlog for cryptokit-1.5. There's not a lot of bang there from 1.3 to 1.5. I have already said, if cryptokit-1.5 can be added easily for *all* SKS users, it will be. I received a single massive patch from Jens modifying SKS's file locations, again, specifically for Debian users. I even sent back to him the tarball contining the patches Debian already used to do this. Then some more smaller patches were received. I have a day job. I have an elderly parent to care for. I haven't had time to fully evaluate the patches I received from Jens. However, I can assure you, if applying them will break an existing SKS user's install, I will have to think LONG and HARD about committing them or whether to pass on them and seek another method. But absolutely none of this has epsilon to do with YOUR deploying SKS now. I'm working on a future SKS release. You mention "a lot of useful patches". Are these the others that Jens provided me or some from your secret development shop? I /really/ hope you're referring to Mike Doty's bdb_stubs.c and Phil Pennock's limit=0 work. If I may offer a wee bit on Internet/FOSS etiquette: If you're going to storm off the playing field with another's football/project, please have the decency to properly fork it and change the name. Please don't go the childish route and think you can just bump the version number. As for your Bronce Medal, I'm sorry, but I cannot accept it. You cite that it is for "doing little to nothing about SKS in general or about SKS in Debian." I do nothing with Debian nor am I required to, I don't use it. As for doing nothing with SKS in general, I've pushed every release since 1.1.0, with 1.1.2 and 1.1.3 being largely my own work. Therefore, I feel I have done too much work to leave me worthy enough for me to claim your medal. Perhaps you could keep it for yourself in honor of your overinflated sense of self-entitlement. Yes, you can build you're own .deb "because we can". However, I sense you are missing who is actually being humiliated. The SKS and Debian maintainers or a user publicly throwing a tantrum for all to see on the Internet? Just as it takes quite a lot to shock and more than most people are capable of to outrage me, it requires much more than a childish outburst of pique to humiliate me. Oh, about your README opening... > This is called the "because we can" version and is [intended to humiliate > and expose the following persons in critical positions] and [doing little > to nothing about SKS in general or about SKS in Debian with the exception > of lame ass excuses of course.] I set off the two parts of the conjunctive phrase being used as an object to is in [square brackets]. With that clarification and reading directly from 'is' to 'doing', as the sentence is constructed, then makes perfect sense. I do believe Jeff Johnson had the best closing response to all of the other replies to your burst of petulance. I include it here by reference. Regards, John Clizbe _______________________________________________ Sks-devel mailing list Sks-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/sks-devel