121–130 of 159 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah I thought of the same comment. That is unfortunate. Maybe Debian is more respectful since it's open source not backed by a company with enterprise customers?
"respectful" as in let's wait years for a maintainer to come up with a solution and when we try to propose our own the maintainer trows a fit and turns it down?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I totally agree that they should have left a note on the issue tracker - even if they thought it would go unread. However I think you're being a little unfair on this one point. >there was no interest in helping out the project. They saw that people were filing issues and making pull requests and that those people were getting total radio silence. I can understand how someone might think "well, people are already try…
Huh? Jumping to conclusions while not knowing all the facts. Please read up on the discussions that we had _after_ Red Hat made this decision. Their decision was made, end of discussion. I am sure they made a sound business decision, and I think as a result of that I made the right personal decision. And here we are now having this meta-discussion with people not having a clue. Welcome !
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh? Jumping to conclusions while not knowing all the facts. Please read up on the discussions that we had _after_ Red Hat made this decision. Their decision was made, end of discussion. I am sure they made a sound business decision, and I think as a result of that I made the right personal decision. And here we are now having this meta-discussion with people not having a clue. Welcome !
You knew that it had been removed from Fedora months before they announced it was going to be replaced in RHEL. You seem totally confident that they wouldn't have just added the package back once you showed back up and addressed the issues that lead to it's removal. Maybe that's true, but I'm not sure it is.
You seem to imply there was no communication, and I stopped the project out of the blue. That is a misrepresentation.
Nobody stepped up to take over maintainership, and I don't see anyone doing that now. But if someone wants to try, I can unarchive the project and restore the PRs and issues.
If not, the king is dead, long live the king!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I added python 3 support after I learned that was the main reason for replacing it. It took me less than an hour to make it work on Python 3, including all (but 2) of the plugins. And given that PCP is using most of the original code, they must have made the same changes to get Python 3 support.
maybe you shouldn't have waited until the absolute last minute to do this or it wouldn't have been replaced.
The king is dead, long live the king.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who lied about this ? It's pretty clear we didn't accepted any PRs since December 2016 until Red Hat decided to replace our code, which started early June 2018. That's 18 months. If I am upset about anything, it is this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1614277#c7
> Who lied about this ? > It's pretty clear we didn't accepted any PRs since December 2016 until Red Hat decided to replace our code, which started early June 2018. That's 18 months. You are asking: "why didn't RH help out", you also didn't accept any pull requests. That surely would answer the question about why they didn't bother with pull request. The question is then, how exactly do you think they have helped?
Maybe you should read the announcement and leave it at that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is done so that existing scripts keep working. Nobody complains about the LLVM linker installing itself as /usr/bin/ld, or systemd providing /sbin/init, do they?
I understand why they did it, but also why the author is complaining about it.
But maybe people fancy the new PCP Dstat and accept their losses. In any case, money rules the world, Open Source ran by volunteers is dying and becomes less and less attractive.
Why not come up with a new name for the project instead of rage quitting?
Yes, RH should and could have filed and issue saying that they started working on a fork/port-to-PCP, and they intend to provide the dstat executable. But usually at that point, the work is already started, and there's almost nothing to be done. How long RH should wait for that ticket? What if the maintainer says, wow, cool, I'll make a py3 version in 3 months. But RH needs it in 2? What if the maintainer disappears again?
It's not great, but it was abandoned. :(
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s the way of the world that larger fish get to do as they please. A simple name change and he can continue to do his work. It’s the idea of turning the other cheek. That or trademark the name I guess.
Would redhat ship dstat under the new name?
I literally use dstat all the time! This is very sad.
Why? What has changed? Do you use the plugin functionality of dstat, or do you just use the dstat command? If it's the latter, then you can do everything you could with dead-dstat and more with pcp-dstat.
this strongly reminds me of the hn post from five days back in which the main thread talked at some length about a very similar scenario > "He missed a big one: you have no way to stop Linux distributions from hacking up your software, and you'll suffer the consequences of whatever they do." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19935648
Yeah I thought of the same comment. That is unfortunate. Maybe Debian is more respectful since it's open source not backed by a company with enterprise customers?
By contrast in my personal experience as a developer of something that got packaged in Debian, I discovered later that that package had a bunch of patches added, a man page written (!) and so on, none of which was bad, but also none of which was fed back to me at all.
(In case not obvious: I work for Red Hat on Fedora.)