On Wed, 26 Jul 2017, nextime@??? wrote:

> July 26, 2017 9:20 AM, "Ivan J." <parazyd@???> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 26 Jul 2017, nextime@??? wrote:
> >
> >> July 26, 2017 9:09 AM, "Jaromil" <jaromil@???> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 26 Jul 2017, Ivan J. wrote:
> >>
> >> And please nextime, I know you've been away, but please take the
> >> time to understand all of this (as you have mentioned you will do)
> >> and try not to push stuff before that.
> >>
> >> I think this way to come back without considering all the work done by
> >> "new" volunteers and imposing a conservative approach on improvements
> >> is a serious show-stopper for many people who are working on Devuan.
> >> Without them we cannot go forward, nextime and daniel you cannot go
> >> forward like this. You are now being very dangerous to the
> >> project. Please take responsibility of your leadership, Devuan has to
> >> grow, not shrink around you. I'm very serious about this and Nextime
> >> you need to consider the fact we haven't talked at all about this and
> >> you have been away all this time.
> >>
> >> Many improvements on Devuan's have been blocked for ages because of
> >> lack of permissions and lack of availability. This is not the way to
> >> respond to volunteers working around problems right now.
> >>
> >> ciao
> >>
> >> Please Jaromil, don't go in this path, it's not about to be conservative or to stop anything,
> >> nor it's anything to get things around me or daniel: it's just a technical point of view: i really
> >> think that
> >> using scorch is the wrong path and that it's easier, faster and better to just improve releasebot
> >> in the actual
> >> infrastructure. Just that, no politics, no polemics, nothing more.
> >
> > Then enjoy and see how far the two of you can get further.
> >
> > Besides migrating the Gitlab to a bare metal machine, has ANY actual
> > progress been done for the past few months?
> >
> > Has any of it been documented?
> >
> > Is there an overview of the Devuan infrastructure status?
>
> Parazyd, if we would like to argument things by technical and constructive opinions i'm in,
> but this way to argument isn't something i'm interested to follow.
>
> Make no sense to talk about what "two of us" can achieve, we aren't two. Make no sense to talk for the
> last few months when you know that i was not here last few months.

Yes, and exactly for that reason of you not being here, and Daniel not
being around so often we decided to take the matters into our own hands.
We made significant improvements that are ready to be included and
nobody is taking care of that. We did our part on the new server as
well, and it's now sitting there idling because the person(s) assigned
to continue the work are not touching it at all. Dyne/Devuan is throwing
money down the drain because of this as well and is not something I'm
very fond of.

> lt's talk about what we all we can achieve togheter, let's talk about what to do in the next few months.

In the next few months we should already have things in place. All that
we want to do can be done in a matter of days, a week at max.

> Documentation on the infrastructure is lacking? yes, you right, let's start, togheter, to document it then.

The way you made the infrastructure from the start has disallowed us to
gain any understanding of it, so unless you and Daniel are willing to
lead us through, then you will have to write the documentation on your
own.

> releasebot needs improvement? let's do that then. But don't try to impose something to all just by saying things like
> what you are saying here in *this* email, if you really think that your path is the right one, argument for that, persuade me that i'm wrong and you are right, at the moment i think it isn't the right path and all the goals that needs to be reached by releasebot i think that they are better developed by improving it as it is than by adding other things in the path.

I do think our way is the right to do it, and we have come up with an
RFC document which you are supposed to read and say what you like and do
not like. Then we improve it if possible, or ditch it if not possible.

All the arguments are there and the document should speak for itself.

--
~ parazyd
GnuPG: 03337671FDE75BB6A85EC91FB876CB44FA1B0274
GnuPG: https://parazyd.cf/FA1B0274.asc