On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 7:35 PM, zooko <zo...@zooko.com> wrote: > I think some > package maintainers might perceive this version of the letter as high-handed > -- > telling someone else how to do their job -- and they might not notice the > actual facts included in the letter explaining why Bitcoin really *is* > different than a lot of software.
Bummer, because this was a explicit consideration while writing it and a concern several people had with the initial draft Mike did. We're very much aware that upstreams frequently cry (wolf) at the mutilation of their unique and precious snowflake. The intention was that second paragraph acknowledging the many good motivations for the existing norms and the third paragraph talking about consensus systems would address these concerns— showing that we aren't totally clueless, and pointing out that we have an actually unusual situation. In intermediate drafts they were longer and more elaborate, but we were struggling against length and trying to avoid delving into a highly technical discussion which would lose anyone who wasn't already very interested. We also compromised on an initial approach of "please don't package this at all" to "please understand first", in part at the protest of our gentoo package (which also bundles leveldb but hard locks it to an exact version in the package system with exact build flags, which is a sophisticated compromise which might not generalize to other distributors) maintainer (uh, Luke-Jr, not exactly the most representative sample). As a first step it's at least important to know that there is a concern here shared by a bunch of people. Helping talk people through understanding it is part of the job here. I certainly didn't expect the discussion to stop with the letter but getting it out there is a way to start the discussion and make it more likely that we have it again with the next packager who comes around. I guess the first priority though is avoiding gratuitously offending people. Can anyone point out any specific tweaks that would reduce initial bristling? On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Douglas Huff <dh...@jrbobdobbs.org> wrote: > Honestly, until I read the quoted part of your response, Oh be nice. If any of this were easy it would all be _done_ already. :) There is naturally some tension when people with different priorities and backgrounds interact, ... I've seen a lot of upstreams run into disagreements with packagers the result is usually better for everyone. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds. Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
