Mon Mar 18 23:21:02 2002
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 22:18:57 +0100 Peter Gerwinski wrote:
Peter> Jochen Küpper wrote:
Peter> The source code is under the GNU GPL and publicly available for
Peter> free. That's not exactly what I'd call "closed development".
Well, there wasn't much to interfere with from the outside during that
process. But anyway, you did the work, you decide.
I am not claiming that I would have spent time, 'cause I haven't
looked at gpa for a while (since nothing was going on and moreover I
just didn't use it so far. Last time I checked it was still kind of
unuseable. And then I work mostly on the commandline or in emacs
>> Anything else?
Peter> There was a deadline to meet. Keeping the CVS in sync and
Peter> discussing everything on this list would have meant to miss it.
Peter> So I just went on my way and produced gpa-0.5.0.tar.gz in time.
Peter> Currently I do not have the time to sync the new source with the
Peter> CVS - sorry for that. (For example, I would have to write a *long*
Peter> ChangeLog, and to hack my changes to the Makefiles into the various
Peter> autofoo input files - and I am not familiar with those autofoo
The question here is whether it was necessary to let get cvs out of
sync from the start. At least there would have been the possibility
to create a new branch for your stuff -- without getting into too many
discussions -- that could be merged back. And ChangeLog? Are you
suggesting there is no documentation about what you did at all? If it
isn't needed, why bother writing it now:( Otherwise, just put it in
there, it might be terse, but that's better than nothing.
One possible strength of OpenSource software is the peer-review
process that you effectively circumvented before coming up with the
0.5.0 version of gpa that now is widely spread into userland, towards
people that are not supposed to be beta-testers.
Maybe you did everything right and the program is just flawless
without any external testing, but that is not what you normally can
It just looks very strange that nothing is going on with the sources
of a open project and all the sudden there is a new version. Kind of
the first major version (considering it's announcements). Somehow
like they told you one year ago we need it on Mar 10, 2002, and Mar 1
you actually realize that's only nine more days...
I am grateful to all you guys building gnupg and it's environment,
because that stuff is really important, but I am seriously puzzled
about what happened here?
University of North Carolina phone: +1-919-962-4403
Department of Chemistry phone: +1-919-962-1579
Venable Hall CB#3290 (Kenan C148) fax: +1-919-843-6041
Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA GnuPG key: 44BCCD8E
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6-cygwin-fcn-1 (Cygwin)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt and GnuPG <http://www.gnupg.org/>
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----