On 5/15/24 11:20, Don Bailey wrote: > > I have zero emotional attachment to Fossil. What I am asking for, not even > demanding, is a fact-based assessment of the asserted issue. Pointing at the > code is not an emotional attachment. It's literally the opposite. It's asking > to demonstrate and document the issues, instead of asserting that something > is awful because /you/ have had an emotional reaction to it failing. How did > it fail? Can you reproduce it? What code is bad? Why is the code bad? If you > can't answer these questions, maybe you > shouldn't have removed it.
The emotional accusation I understand, it really seems like it's just fossil that evokes this reaction out of people. Just fossil that makes people want us to prove without any reason of doubt that the code should have been removed. I also just don't understand why people are so attached to fossil. Is it because people feel like there is a high burden of evidence for touching the holy code as ordained by bell labs? We didn't want it so it went. If you think this is actually a mistake and there is a world of possibility to be had thanks to fossil in Plan 9 I encourage you to maintain fossil yourself and prove to us that we were wrong in thinking it was dead weight. I want to specifically compare the discussion that happened on this thread between p9sk1 and fossil. We think that no one should be using p9sk1, and so we spent the time to explain to others the very real, concrete and specific issues with the code and implementation. We are not telling any other user of Plan 9 to not use fossil if they'd like, we simply don't want to deal with it in 9front. I think the burden of proof you are putting on us to make this decision would only make sense if we were advocating for other distributions and current users of fossil to no longer use it. It's fine, we're just not interested in it, sorry. As I, and others, have pointed out now a couple of times. Adding fossil back to 9front is trivial. Perhaps you haven't had the experience of having to sit in irc and help new users get going with the system who really don't have opinions about anything and then dealing with the outcomes when things blow up. As you said fossil is not exactly easy to deal with, it needs a lot of special consideration. So why then are you complaining that 9front made the decision to remove that option for the uninformed user? Does it not make more sense to direct users towards a filesystem that is more resilient and requires less watering? All of this is entirely moot with gefs right around the corner. I can't imagine someone willingly want to use fossil with gefs as a (soon to be) alternative. ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tad3dc0c93039a7d2-M0565bff8d967be11771601b6 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
