On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Christophe Lincoln
<pankso@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> You threating to use cookutils will reverse everything my and
> GoKhlaYeh have done. It cause me to not sleep for last day.
Christopher, do you think I sleep well ? We are, and most people here
I guess, passionate people, we love what we do, maybe a bit too much
some time. Christian is correct we want to work for pleasure, in a
happyness ambiance and together.
> GoKhlaYeh made the new tazwok. I just helped supervised fixes. He
> sald it was better to put his changes into tazwok since tazbb was too
> far gone. It was also to reduce lines of code i think.
Yes and now we can't work together on Tazwok since it is too
complicated. Look to commits, a part you and Go, no one is able to help
and this is a problem.
What I found fancy is that YOU said yourself "give me access to
cookutils repo so I can help making it as powerfull as Tazwok but
without the bloat". You implicitly says that Tazwok is bloated!!!
Now I said no to repo acces because it's too much for me at the moment
and in the current conditions, but I said you can send patch (most
open-source project work like that, ther is a maitainer who mamage
submited patch before inclusion).
> We also have libtaz for adding common functions and
> @Eric Joseph-Alexandre
>
> Tank can't be some magic box where the packages can be build but
> never debug but on tank. Thats where the problems started. Thats what
> the new tazwok was trying to fix.
Yes and we (tank maintainers) was aware of that much before you started
work on tazwok. You say "the new tazwok was trying to fix" and it
fails. The cookutils have build deps in mind from the start and will
solve this problem.