Thread: Re: [Audacity-devel] Ubuntu on Windows (was: tarball generation patches) (Page 2)
A free multi-track audio editor and recorder
Brought to you by:
aosiniao
From: Rob S. <aq...@ya...> - 2013-02-01 06:47:02
|
----- Original Message ----- > From: Benjamin Drung <bd...@de...> > To: aud...@li... > Cc: > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 12:48 > PS: Can we avoid top-posting on this mailing list? I recommend to read > the technical guidelines on > http://www.ubuntu.com/support/community/mailing-lists I second that and would suggest that we don't just read the guidelines, we adopt them (in essence if not word-for-word), i.e. record them on the web-site and reference them in the list 'welcome' mail. -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? |
From: Leland <le...@au...> - 2013-02-01 07:10:03
|
<switching to defiant mode> SORRY, I POST INLINE OR TOP DEPENDING ON WHAT I FEEL IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE SPECIFIC THREAD. IF I WANT TO RESPOND TO A SPEICFIC POSTING, I WILL POST INLINE. BUT, IF THERE'S ONLY ONE ANSWER TO BE HAD, WHY MAKE THE READER WEED THROUGH ALL OF THE STUFF THEY'VE ALREADY READ? THAT WARRANTS A TOP POST. PERSONALLY, I FIND INLINE POSTING DIFFICULT TO READ SOMETIMES, ESPECIALLY WHEN PEOPLE DON'T DELINEATE THEIR RESPONSE WITH BLANK LINES AND I HAVE TO TRY AND DECIPHER WHAT WAS QUOTED AND WHAT WAS ADDED. NOR WILL I ALLOW INTERNET IDEALS TO DICTATE HOW I ENJOY THE INTERNET. BESIDES, WHOSE GOING TO POLICE IT? THERE'S JUST NOT ENOUGH TIME IN THE DAY TO WORRY ABOUT SUCH TEDIOUS AND INSIGNIFICANT RULES. <DEFIANT MODE OFF> But, I don't post enough to have my opinion count anyway, so make whatever rules are deemed appropriate. Just remember, rules were made to be broken. Leland On 2/1/2013 12:46 AM, Rob Sykes wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: Benjamin Drung <bd...@de...> >> To: aud...@li... >> Cc: >> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 12:48 > > >> PS: Can we avoid top-posting on this mailing list? I recommend to read >> the technical guidelines on >> http://www.ubuntu.com/support/community/mailing-lists > > > I second that and would suggest that we don't just read the guidelines, we adopt them (in essence if not word-for-word), i.e. record them on the web-site and reference them in the list 'welcome' mail. > > -- > A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. > Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? > A: Top-posting. > Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. > Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics > Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: > http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_jan > _______________________________________________ > audacity-devel mailing list > aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel > |
From: Vaughan J. <va...@au...> - 2013-02-05 07:31:20
|
On 1/31/2013 11:10 PM, Leland wrote: > <switching to defiant mode> LL, I totally agree with you, but "defiant mode" is exactly why I think this thread is way off topic, way trolling. Not a good use of anybody's time. >[...] > But, I don't post enough to have my opinion count anyway, so make > whatever rules are deemed appropriate. Just remember, rules were made > to be broken. Indeed. It's F/OSS, for Pete's sake! How many rules do we need?! It's hardly the case that email or coding styles have been holding back Audacity. - V |
From: Martyn S. <mar...@gm...> - 2013-02-03 23:32:45
|
Well, I'm sure you've read that rant from Leland (and don't need to scroll past it again here) (but you'll have to, since I mixed it). Personally I would rather a top-post (and sign-off) if that is right for a particular post, a top-posted summary and then inline comments (followed by a sign-off) if that is appropriate. Or inline text (and sign-off) if that is appropriate. I really do prefer people to sign-off after they have finished posting though, so I can stop scrolling through stuff. After all, these are conversations, near 'real-time'. Rules governing top vs in-line seem to be for people reading them from an archive. I'm sure that many many hours have been dedicated/wasted on discussing this. I hope we don't do so here. Ubuntu is (presumably) a bigger project than Audacity, in terms of postings or downloads, so maybe rules need to be stricter. I think what we have has been working for most of us. And I wish I could inline at work, where we have Outlook! On 01/02/2013 07:10, Leland wrote: > <switching to defiant mode> > > SORRY, I POST INLINE OR TOP DEPENDING ON WHAT I FEEL IS APPROPRIATE FOR > THE SPECIFIC THREAD. IF I WANT TO RESPOND TO A SPEICFIC POSTING, I WILL > POST INLINE. BUT, IF THERE'S ONLY ONE ANSWER TO BE HAD, WHY MAKE THE > READER WEED THROUGH ALL OF THE STUFF THEY'VE ALREADY READ? THAT > WARRANTS A TOP POST. > > PERSONALLY, I FIND INLINE POSTING DIFFICULT TO READ SOMETIMES, > ESPECIALLY WHEN PEOPLE DON'T DELINEATE THEIR RESPONSE WITH BLANK LINES > AND I HAVE TO TRY AND DECIPHER WHAT WAS QUOTED AND WHAT WAS ADDED. > > NOR WILL I ALLOW INTERNET IDEALS TO DICTATE HOW I ENJOY THE INTERNET. > > BESIDES, WHOSE GOING TO POLICE IT? THERE'S JUST NOT ENOUGH TIME IN THE > DAY TO WORRY ABOUT SUCH TEDIOUS AND INSIGNIFICANT RULES. > > <DEFIANT MODE OFF> > > But, I don't post enough to have my opinion count anyway, so make > whatever rules are deemed appropriate. Just remember, rules were made > to be broken. > > Leland > > On 2/1/2013 12:46 AM, Rob Sykes wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >>> From: Benjamin Drung <bd...@de...> >>> To: aud...@li... >>> Cc: >>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 12:48 >> >> >>> PS: Can we avoid top-posting on this mailing list? I recommend to read >>> the technical guidelines on >>> http://www.ubuntu.com/support/community/mailing-lists >> >> >> I second that and would suggest that we don't just read the guidelines, we adopt them (in essence if not word-for-word), i.e. record them on the web-site and reference them in the list 'welcome' mail. Whoops! That line above isn't wrapping properly for me (Thunderbird) >> -- >> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. >> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? >> A: Top-posting. >> Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? Well, I read them in a thread and then it makes sense! TTFN Martyn >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. >> Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics >> Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_jan >> _______________________________________________ >> audacity-devel mailing list >> aud...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. > Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics > Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: > http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_jan > _______________________________________________ > audacity-devel mailing list > aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel > |
From: Vaughan J. <va...@au...> - 2013-02-05 07:47:48
|
On 2/3/2013 3:32 PM, Martyn Shaw wrote: > Well, I'm sure you've read that rant from Leland (and don't need to > scroll past it again here) (but you'll have to, since I mixed it). :-) > > [...] > After all, these are conversations, near 'real-time'. Right. And that's why any style issues need not be "perfected", much less rigidly follow rules. >[...]Ubuntu is (presumably) a bigger > project than Audacity, in terms of postings or downloads, so maybe > rules need to be stricter. Looks it, in terms of postings or downloads, and active contributors. But user count? I think Audacity has hundreds of millions, and Ubuntu less than 4m, right? >I think what we have has been working for > most of us. Exactly. So I don't see the need for these new rule suggestions. > > And I wish I could inline at work, where we have Outlook! Microsoft software is embodiment of evil. ;-) - V |
From: Rob S. <aq...@ya...> - 2013-02-04 07:25:37
|
> On 01/02/2013 07:10, Leland wrote: >> BESIDES, WHOSE GOING TO POLICE IT? THERE'S JUST NOT ENOUGH TIME IN THE >> DAY TO WORRY ABOUT SUCH TEDIOUS AND INSIGNIFICANT RULES. But they're guidelines, not rules, so of course there can be occasional exception. As for the 'police', I imagine anyone could add a friendly 'P.S.' reminder/pointer to the guideline page. ----- Original Message ----- > From: Martyn Shaw <mar...@gm...> > Sent: Sunday, 3 February 2013, 23:32 ... > Ubuntu is (presumably) a bigger > project than Audacity, in terms of postings or downloads, so maybe > rules need to be stricter. Seems you're suggesting that a low signal to noise ratio is okay for a smaller number of postings but not for a larger number of postings. This may well be true, but where does this leave someone whose in-box contains both? Presumably much less likely to read the ones with the lower SNR, and thus less likely to contribute, e.g. > From: Daniel Jensen > Sent: Dec 11, 2012; 1:21am ... > In the meantime Audacity-devel is more mail than I want to deal with > right now, and many of you insist on entirely untrimmed top-posting, > which results in e.g. an email today where the only content was "+1" > (that's two bytes of content, folks) but the email was 9KB and ended > with the cruft below. > > So I'm going to stop mail delivery. If somebody would be willing to > discuss the noise removal effect with me, please send me an email - > either CC'd (I can reply on-list, I just won't be getting mail delivery > any more) or off-list. ----- Original Message ----- > From: Martyn Shaw <mar...@gm...> ... > rules need to be stricter. I think what we have has been working for > most of us. Perhaps that 'most' could be a little more though? Cheers, Rob |
From: Vaughan J. <va...@au...> - 2013-02-05 07:52:21
|
:-) Great that this is an inline post in opposition to top-posting. So I'll top-post to it, and include the whole rest as quote, just to waste some electrons. I think we have better things to discuss. ;-) - V On 2/3/2013 11:25 PM, Rob Sykes wrote: >> On 01/02/2013 07:10, Leland wrote: >>> BESIDES, WHOSE GOING TO POLICE IT? THERE'S JUST NOT ENOUGH TIME IN THE >>> DAY TO WORRY ABOUT SUCH TEDIOUS AND INSIGNIFICANT RULES. > > > But they're guidelines, not rules, so of course there can be occasional exception. As for the 'police', I imagine anyone could add a friendly 'P.S.' reminder/pointer to the guideline page. > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: Martyn Shaw <mar...@gm...> >> Sent: Sunday, 3 February 2013, 23:32 > > ... >> Ubuntu is (presumably) a bigger >> project than Audacity, in terms of postings or downloads, so maybe >> rules need to be stricter. > > Seems you're suggesting that a low signal to noise ratio is okay for a smaller number of postings but not for a larger number of postings. This may well be true, but where does this leave someone whose in-box contains both? Presumably much less likely to read the ones with the lower SNR, and thus less likely to contribute, e.g. > >> From: Daniel Jensen > >> Sent: Dec 11, 2012; 1:21am > ... >> In the meantime Audacity-devel is more mail than I want to deal with >> right now, and many of you insist on entirely untrimmed top-posting, >> which results in e.g. an email today where the only content was "+1" >> (that's two bytes of content, folks) but the email was 9KB and ended >> with the cruft below. >> > >> So I'm going to stop mail delivery. If somebody would be willing to >> discuss the noise removal effect with me, please send me an email - >> either CC'd (I can reply on-list, I just won't be getting mail delivery >> any more) or off-list. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: Martyn Shaw <mar...@gm...> > > ... >> rules need to be stricter. I think what we have has been working for > >> most of us. > > > Perhaps that 'most' could be a little more though? > > Cheers, > Rob > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. > Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics > Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: > http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_jan > _______________________________________________ > audacity-devel mailing list > aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel > |
From: Vaughan J. <va...@au...> - 2013-02-05 07:25:12
|
On 1/31/2013 10:46 PM, Rob Sykes wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: Benjamin Drung <bd...@de...> >> To: aud...@li... >> Cc: >> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 12:48 > > >> PS: Can we avoid top-posting on this mailing list? I recommend to read >> the technical guidelines on >> http://www.ubuntu.com/support/community/mailing-lists > > > I second that and would suggest that we don't just read the guidelines, we adopt them (in essence if not word-for-word), i.e. record them on the web-site and reference them in the list 'welcome' mail. No. We've already discussed this, ages ago. We encourage contribution over stylistic "rectitude" or enforcement. Personally, I strongly object to messages that do *not* top-post, and instead include the entire thread before a couple of bottom-posted sentences. I think top-posting, inline, and bottom-posting all have appropriate uses. We all use different email clients, and each makes a different format easier to use. Get over it. Read what you want to, in the order you want. If you miss something, it's on you (and the choices made by maker of your email client). It's another religion discussion, imo. Or it's like some contributors who carp about other peoples' grammar in email. Message is far more important than grammar. We have better things to discuss. Let's focus on making Audacity better, not this stuff. Or does everybody want to turn this list into a troll parade? I'm -1 on that. - V |
From: Rob S. <aq...@ya...> - 2013-02-05 12:28:43
|
----- Original Message ----- > From: Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> > To: aud...@li... > Cc: > Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 7:52 > Subject: Re: [Audacity-devel] Mailing list guidelines (was Ubuntu on Windows) > >: -) Great that this is an inline post in opposition to top-posting. So My post wasn't in opposition to top-posting: it was in support of reasoned discussion on how the project might achieve the practical benefits of attracting/retaining developers (such as Daniel). Benjamin's suggestion of one F/OSS project looking to a larger F/OSS project for guidelines seems reasonable (assuming that the first project might want to become larger). Simply dismissing the suggestion as 'religious' etc. however, doesn't seem particularly reasonable (unless perhaps the larger project is known for having 'religious' problems in this area?). > I'll top-post to it, and include the whole rest as quote, just to waste > some electrons. It also wastes time and money (particularly for those checking their mail on smartphones etc.) and is a prime example of what apparently lost us Daniel's participation. Cheers, Rob |
From: Vaughan J. <va...@au...> - 2013-02-08 06:06:06
|
On 2/5/2013 4:28 AM, Rob Sykes wrote: >> From: Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> >> Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 7:52 >> >> : -) Great that this is an inline post in opposition to top-posting. So "So"...? I think you've selectively eliminated a lot of context, and that I'm being misrepresented here. I think most of this conversation is off-track for making Audacity user experience better. > > My post wasn't in opposition to top-posting: it was in support of reasoned discussion on how the project might achieve the practical benefits of attracting/retaining developers (such as Daniel). I think I was the one who first lamented Daniel's departure, which was only partly about email courtesy, as I understood how he expressed it. *Far* more about non-responsiveness to his posts, iirc. I think I was the only one who actually gave him any responses. And of that email courtesy part, overly bottom-posting and including too much irrelevant stuff from prior parts of the thread were actually the issues Daniel had regarding email, right? Not top-posting. >Benjamin's suggestion of one F/OSS project looking to a larger F/OSS project for guidelines seems reasonable (assuming that the first project might want to become larger). Simply dismissing the suggestion as 'religious' etc. however, doesn't seem particularly reasonable (unless perhaps the larger project is known for having 'religious' problems in this area?). My point was that we already had all these discussions long ago and made those decisions for this project. And I think it's probably one of the least important agenda items we could possibly have right now, to revisit those longstanding decisions. Overall, it's starting to seem like trolling. Ubuntu is "larger"? Okay, has more developer participants (certainly currently), but far fewer users, right? So "appeal to authority" there is questionable, I think. And all OS platforms have always had differing coding standards from the other platforms. I think the religiosity is apparent in the way it was proposed, as something of a better-contributed "real" project's also-longstanding choice. I don't see how changing our longstanding coding standards would help our tens of millions of users. Tiny reward for the effort, as I see it. So is this discussion. > >> I'll top-post to it, and include the whole rest as quote, just to waste >> some electrons. > > It also wastes time and money (particularly for those checking their mail on smartphones etc.) and is a prime example of what apparently lost us Daniel's participation. No, I think that (only) part of his issue was about bottom-posting (not top-posting). And depending on your smart phone and mail client, one or the other will be more wasteful. There's no universality to this stuff. And if email courtesy is anybody's primary issue about contributing, they don't really want to contribute all that much. - V |
From: Rob S. <aq...@ya...> - 2013-02-08 08:09:51
|
----- Original Message ----- > From: Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> > To: aud...@li... > Cc: > Sent: Friday, 8 February 2013, 6:06 > Subject: Re: [Audacity-devel] Mailing list guidelines > My point was that we already had all these discussions long ago and made > those decisions for this project. And I think it's probably one of the > least important agenda items we could possibly have right now, to > revisit those longstanding decisions. Overall, it's starting to seem > like trolling. It's hardly trolling to suggest a guideline when there isn't one in evidence; if there's a long-standing decision on what works best on this list, great—recording it on the mailing-list page is all that's needed to prevent unnecessary re-discussion :) |
From: Vaughan J. <va...@au...> - 2013-02-08 23:36:59
|
On 2/8/2013 12:09 AM, Rob Sykes wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> >> To: aud...@li... >> Cc: >> Sent: Friday, 8 February 2013, 6:06 >> Subject: Re: [Audacity-devel] Mailing list guidelines > > >> My point was that we already had all these discussions long ago and made > >> those decisions for this project. And I think it's probably one of the >> least important agenda items we could possibly have right now, to >> revisit those longstanding decisions. Overall, it's starting to seem >> like trolling. > > > It's hardly trolling to suggest a guideline when there isn't one in evidence; if there's a long-standing decision on what works best on this list, great—recording it on the mailing-list page is all that's needed to prevent unnecessary re-discussion :) You quoted me as saying we already made this decision, and it's to *not* have a guideline. I think that's been explained. And if there's not a guideline, why document it? There will always be people who want to be strict about top-, inline-, or bottom- posting. I think that's often based on platform conventions. And mail clients. But Audacity is committedly cross-platform, and there *will* be conflicts of conventions. So if anybody wants us to have strict rules in accordance with what they're used to, they *are* going to be unhappy with some postings. By keeping it to "communicate as effectively as you can" rather than "you must email this way, or no soup for you", we welcome more contributors. Again, my understanding is that Daniel was most unhappy about lack of expert response to his questions, but also found the posting style irritating. But specifically, it was not about where to respond, it was about the practice some posters very consistently have, of discussing things at extreme length, then responding to one tiny point in the whole thread by quoting the whole thread, then adding a one-line response. I've ranted about excessive verbosity many times. Some people just cannot be concise, though, and I don't think we want to restrict postings that are *trying* to help and communicate as best they can. Just give them guidance/suggestions when it's problematic. Plus, some mail clients (e.g., gmail) make it much easier to not have to view the ancient, irrelevant parts of the thread. Thanks, Vaughan |
From: Vaughan J. <va...@au...> - 2013-02-08 23:39:56
|
On 2/8/2013 12:09 AM, Rob Sykes wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> >> To: aud...@li... >> Sent: Friday, 8 February 2013, 6:06 >> Subject: Re: [Audacity-devel] Mailing list guidelines > [...] > It's hardly trolling to suggest a guideline when there isn't one in evidence; > [...] You didn't quote me about the "troll" comment, so I need to point out that what I referred to was not even on the mailing list guidelines topic. It was about coding style. Campbell cited his experience as reason we should accept his argument. That's anecdotal, not about the merit of the argument itself, not compelling, and as lots of us have lots of experience, not convincing. I had already agreed from the outset, it's much better to have a consistent, high quality coding style. So it was bringing in an irrelevant anecdote, to continue to argue about a point on which there was already agreement -- definition of troll. Anyway, that horse is long out of the barn for Audacity, and as I wrote, we don't have resources to completely rewrite Audacity in a new indentation/capitalization/etc style. And then the responses I got were more about why it's good to have consistent coding style (again, and not disagreed!). Dominic decided early on to accept a range of styles, to encourage participation. So that's another decision we don't really need to revisit. We need to focus on things we can actually do. Thanks, Vaughan |
From: Peter S. <pet...@ya...> - 2013-02-09 00:01:49
|
Vaughan wrote: >We need to focus on things we can actually do. +1 hear, hear ! Peter. Peter Sampson Tel: +44 (0)1625 524 780 Mob: +44 (0)7732 278 299 ________________________________ From: Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> To: aud...@li... Sent: Friday, February 8, 2013 11:40 PM Subject: [Audacity-devel] back to coding style (was diverged dto Re: Mailing list guidelines) On 2/8/2013 12:09 AM, Rob Sykes wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> >> To: aud...@li... >> Sent: Friday, 8 February 2013, 6:06 >> Subject: Re: [Audacity-devel] Mailing list guidelines > [...] > It's hardly trolling to suggest a guideline when there isn't one in evidence; > [...] You didn't quote me about the "troll" comment, so I need to point out that what I referred to was not even on the mailing list guidelines topic. It was about coding style. Campbell cited his experience as reason we should accept his argument. That's anecdotal, not about the merit of the argument itself, not compelling, and as lots of us have lots of experience, not convincing. I had already agreed from the outset, it's much better to have a consistent, high quality coding style. So it was bringing in an irrelevant anecdote, to continue to argue about a point on which there was already agreement -- definition of troll. Anyway, that horse is long out of the barn for Audacity, and as I wrote, we don't have resources to completely rewrite Audacity in a new indentation/capitalization/etc style. And then the responses I got were more about why it's good to have consistent coding style (again, and not disagreed!). Dominic decided early on to accept a range of styles, to encourage participation. So that's another decision we don't really need to revisit. We need to focus on things we can actually do. Thanks, Vaughan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Free Next-Gen Firewall Hardware Offer Buy your Sophos next-gen firewall before the end March 2013 and get the hardware for free! Learn more. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sophos-d2d-feb _______________________________________________ audacity-devel mailing list aud...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel |
From: Rob S. <aq...@ya...> - 2013-02-09 19:09:10
|
----- Original Message ----- > From: Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> > To: aud...@li... > Cc: > Sent: Friday, 8 February 2013, 23:40 > Subject: [Audacity-devel] back to coding style (was diverged dto Re: Mailing list guidelines) > You didn't quote me about the "troll" comment, ... I did; here it is again: > From: Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> > Sent: Friday, 8 February 2013, 6:06 > Subject: Re: [Audacity-devel] Mailing list guidelines ... > revisit those longstanding decisions. Overall, it's starting to seem > like trolling. [back to Friday, 8 February 2013, 23:40] > so I need to point out > that what I referred to was not even on the mailing list guidelines > topic. It was about coding style. Oh okay, but you referred to it in the "Mailing list guidelines" thread (which had no connection to the one on coding style). ----- Original Message ----- > From: Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> > To: aud...@li... > Cc: > Sent: Friday, 8 February 2013, 23:37 > Subject: Re: [Audacity-devel] Mailing list guidelines > > On 2/8/2013 12:09 AM, Rob Sykes wrote: >> if there's a long-standing decision on what works best on this >> list, great—recording it on the mailing-list page is all that's needed to >> prevent unnecessary re-discussion :) > > You quoted me as saying we already made this decision, and it's to *not* > have a guideline. I think that's been explained. And if there's not a > guideline, why document it? As I said a few lines above: to prevent unnecessary re-discussion. Three different people, recently arrived, have thought it worth mentioning/discussing. Without recording the decision, in all likelihood other new arrivals will also to want to discuss something that unbeknownst to them, is not up for discussion -- thus wasting a lot more time than it would do to record the decision! > ... Audacity is committedly cross-platform, ... By keeping it to "communicate as > effectively as you can" rather than "you must email this way, or no > soup > for you", we welcome more contributors. Isn't this the essence of the decision/guideline that needs to be recorded? > I've ranted about excessive verbosity many times. Again, this sounds like guideline material: if the guideline were available, perhaps you'd have to rant less often! And I say less often rather than never, because guidelines are not the same as rules, a distinction that I suspect may have been lost at some points in this thread. Cheers, Rob |
From: Vaughan J. <va...@au...> - 2013-02-10 06:47:37
|
Rob, thanks for your concern, but I think we're simply looping here, spiraling into the "you trolled first" quicksand pit. Bye from me on this topic. If you think we need to document a non-commitment to certain style guidelines, please as Gale about wiki privileges. - V |
From: Rob S. <aq...@ya...> - 2013-02-10 15:46:56
|
----- Original Message ----- > From: Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> > To: aud...@li... > Cc: > Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013, 6:48 > Subject: Re: [Audacity-devel] Mailing list guidelines > > Rob, thanks for your concern, but I think we're simply looping here, > spiraling into the "you trolled first" quicksand pit. Bye from me on > this topic. ?? The only suggestion of trolling in this thread came from you, but then you subsequently revealed that your comment actually related to a _different_ thread! So referring to it again in this thread, confusion makes way for bewilderment... > If you think we need to document a non-commitment to certain style > guidelines, please as Gale about wiki privileges. Discussing something that's not up for discussion is clearly a waste of time, so I guess something along the lines of: "Whilst some projects promote clear and concise communication on their mailing-lists through guidelines (w.r.t. excessive quoting, top-posting, etc.), such an approach is considered inappropriate for Audactiy, due to its F/OSS, cross-platform nature; therefore Audacity mailing-lists shall have _no_ guidelines. This decision (which was made in this thread [insert link to thread]) is core to the project ideals, so is not up for re-discussion." But it's better for someone who was involved in the original discussion to summarise it (I haven't seen it). Cheers, Rob |
From: Vaughan J. <va...@au...> - 2013-02-10 20:30:54
|
I thought we could drop this by this point. Please? On 2/10/2013 7:46 AM, Rob Sykes wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> >> To: aud...@li... >> Cc: >> Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013, 6:48 >> Subject: Re: [Audacity-devel] Mailing list guidelines >> >> Rob, thanks for your concern, but I think we're simply looping here, >> spiraling into the "you trolled first" quicksand pit. Bye from me on >> this topic. > > > ?? The only suggestion of trolling in this thread came from you, Yes, and I still think it was trolling. > but then you subsequently revealed that your comment actually related to a _different_ thread! So referring to it again in this thread, confusion makes way for bewilderment... I didn't *reveal* it, I just corrected you when you cited it on this topic, that in fact I had made the comment about a different topic. Nothing to reveal, as it's in the archives. :-( Look, I just thought the whole discussion was sliding into endless circling argument about whether code style guidelines were a good thing, which nobody had ever denied. And Campbell, if you're still reading this, I didn't realize you didn't know the usage of "troll" that I meant. I did *not* call you a troll, I suggested that your comment was condescending and fomenting more argument about a topic nobody disagreed about. > >> If you think we need to document a non-commitment to certain style > >> guidelines, please as Gale about wiki privileges. > > > Discussing something that's not up for discussion is clearly a waste of time, Discuss away. I never wanted to squelch discussion, just thought that both these threads have been counterproductive, and re-arguing about topics we decided long ago. Thanks, Vaughan |
From: Steve t. F. <ste...@gm...> - 2013-02-10 17:23:59
|
The way the mailing list has generally worked is for replies to quote an appropriate amount of context from the previous post's. A "+1" in isolation without context is not likely to be meaningful, but on the other hand a "+1" in line with 30 previous messages can clearly be an annoyance for recipients that have mail clients that do not hide or collapse old posts. I switched my e-mail client for this mailing list to GMail because it aids readability of threaded discussions, but there is no requirement for others to do this. Given that there are many e-mail clients with different behaviours, I don't think that we need a formal ruling - we just need a bit of care and consideration. Steve |
From: Martyn S. <mar...@gm...> - 2013-02-10 23:56:37
|
+1 Martyn On 10/02/2013 17:23, Steve the Fiddle wrote: > The way the mailing list has generally worked is for replies to quote > an appropriate amount of context from the previous post's. A "+1" in > isolation without context is not likely to be meaningful, but on the > other hand a "+1" in line with 30 previous messages can clearly be an > annoyance for recipients that have mail clients that do not hide or > collapse old posts. > > I switched my e-mail client for this mailing list to GMail because it > aids readability of threaded discussions, but there is no requirement > for others to do this. Given that there are many e-mail clients with > different behaviours, I don't think that we need a formal ruling - we > just need a bit of care and consideration. > > Steve > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Free Next-Gen Firewall Hardware Offer > Buy your Sophos next-gen firewall before the end March 2013 > and get the hardware for free! Learn more. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/sophos-d2d-feb > _______________________________________________ > audacity-devel mailing list > aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel > |
From: Vaughan J. <va...@au...> - 2013-02-10 20:42:18
|
Rob, I guess I offended some sensibility of yours. Don't know what that was, but I'm quite surprised by how negative you have become about this. We were getting along so well. If someone misquotes me, I feel I have to respond. If people accuse me of being close-mindedly opposed to something in principle, when I actually said I agree in principle but we don't have resources, I have to correct that. If people want to distract the whole group with argumentation about things we've already decided, then by about the third time around I feel I need to drop in and point out that it's just becoming a troll feed. On 2/10/2013 7:46 AM, Rob Sykes wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> >> To: aud...@li... >> Cc: >> Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013, 6:48 >> Subject: Re: [Audacity-devel] Mailing list guidelines >> >> Rob, thanks for your concern, but I think we're simply looping here, >> spiraling into the "you trolled first" quicksand pit. Bye from me on >> this topic. > > > ?? The only suggestion of trolling in this thread came from you, but then you subsequently revealed that your comment actually related to a _different_ thread! So referring to it again in this thread, confusion makes way for bewilderment... You just plain got that wrong, and if you go back and re-read the original, you'll see that. But this remark from you is clearly an attempt to portray me as some kind of flake. And please, "bye from me", why do you want to keep grinding on it? > >> If you think we need to document a non-commitment to certain style > >> guidelines, please as Gale about wiki privileges. > > > Discussing something that's not up for discussion is clearly a waste of time, This is what I mean. If I express my opinion strongly about this argument about whether code style guidelines are good thing (which was not in question), that's not squelching discussion, it's just me putting my oar in. Did you read the subsequent one where I wrote that if you all want to keep discussing it, go ahead? Please, if you're mad at me, tell me why. Do you think I owe anybody an apology? I want to return to a cooperative relationship. Thanks, Vaughan |
From: Vaughan J. <va...@au...> - 2013-02-10 20:47:45
|
Oops, I meant this to go only to Rob, for off-list discussion. Sorry about that. - V On 2/10/2013 12:42 PM, Vaughan Johnson wrote: > Rob, I guess I offended some sensibility of yours. Don't know what that > was, but I'm quite surprised by how negative you have become about this. > We were getting along so well. > [...] |
From: Vaughan J. <va...@au...> - 2013-02-10 20:43:12
|
Thank you, Steve. Right on. - V On 2/10/2013 9:23 AM, Steve the Fiddle wrote: > The way the mailing list has generally worked is for replies to quote > an appropriate amount of context from the previous post's. A "+1" in > isolation without context is not likely to be meaningful, but on the > other hand a "+1" in line with 30 previous messages can clearly be an > annoyance for recipients that have mail clients that do not hide or > collapse old posts. > > I switched my e-mail client for this mailing list to GMail because it > aids readability of threaded discussions, but there is no requirement > for others to do this. Given that there are many e-mail clients with > different behaviours, I don't think that we need a formal ruling - we > just need a bit of care and consideration. > > Steve > |
From: Martyn S. <mar...@gm...> - 2013-02-10 23:54:02
|
+1 Martyn On 10/02/2013 20:43, Vaughan Johnson wrote: > Thank you, Steve. Right on. > > - V > > On 2/10/2013 9:23 AM, Steve the Fiddle wrote: >> The way the mailing list has generally worked is for replies to quote >> an appropriate amount of context from the previous post's. A "+1" in >> isolation without context is not likely to be meaningful, but on the >> other hand a "+1" in line with 30 previous messages can clearly be an >> annoyance for recipients that have mail clients that do not hide or >> collapse old posts. >> >> I switched my e-mail client for this mailing list to GMail because it >> aids readability of threaded discussions, but there is no requirement >> for others to do this. Given that there are many e-mail clients with >> different behaviours, I don't think that we need a formal ruling - we >> just need a bit of care and consideration. >> >> Steve >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Free Next-Gen Firewall Hardware Offer > Buy your Sophos next-gen firewall before the end March 2013 > and get the hardware for free! Learn more. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/sophos-d2d-feb > _______________________________________________ > audacity-devel mailing list > aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel > |
From: Vaughan J. <va...@au...> - 2013-02-13 05:05:20
|
Just to update: off-list, Rob and I agreed we had misunderstood each other about these. Divergent sub-threads. All patched, I think. Campbell, if you're still on this, I do want to again apologize. I take your word that you did not intend it as a troll. I just think we have better potential for growth if we are not doctrinaire about either of these style things, or in general. Thanks, Vaughan |