Re: [MinGW-dvlpr] OldWiki -> NewWiki and Official CVS

[Keith M. <kei...@us...>]

On Thursday 11 September 2008 09:20:47 techtonik wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 9:18 AM, Keith Marshall
> <kei...@us...> wrote:
> > Oh, I *know* the job isn't finished!
>
> Now you know, but you didn't say that before, so who could knew
> that you know? =)

It's a well publicised fact that the migration of old wiki content to 
the new is a work in progress.  That the date of posting was, in fact 
the same as the day you complained, should have given you a very 
strong hint, that maybe there was still work to be done, but no, you 
have to jump in and say "its goddamn broken, please get it fixed".

> > You are way too impatient, which
> > is one of the reasons you've made yourself so gravely unpopular
> > among the MinGW Developer Community.  Why don't you just
> > contribute something *constructive* for a change?
>
> OpenID support? Here - http://drupal.org/node/233885 - waiting for
> reviews.

And this has what, precisely, to do with contributing to MinGW?

> Fixed MinGW installer?

Didn't realise it was broken.  Sure, it could stand improvement, but 
you can hardly claim to have *fixed* it.

> Done. Waiting for reviews if it is constructive.

Of course, I'm grateful that you have taken on this task, but yet 
again, you've gone about it in an inappropriate manner:--

- You announce that MinGW-5.1.5 does or does not do such and such;
  there is no MinGW-5.1.5, so how can you assert this?

- You post a link to MinGW-5.1.5, which is on an offsite server,
  and never sanctioned as an official release; yet you would have
  it believed that it is so.

- You post patches, calling them MinGW-5.1.5 and MinGW-5.1.6-RC
  respectively.  How can this be, since you are not authorised to
  assign release status for *any* MinGW package; that is the
  exclusive prerogative of the appointed package maintainer, or
  of the project admins, and you are neither.

Now, it is true that the package maintainer for MinGW-5.x, Dave 
Murphy, has shown an appalling lack of interest recently, (to the 
extent that he doesn't even bother to respond to related mail).  
Therefore, I'm sure we would be willing to replace him in that role, 
but if you are interested in fulfilling that, then you should 
politely offer your services, instead of assuming a God-given right 
to just muscle in, and do the job off your own bat.

> I've contributed enough to stop and wait to know if 
> it will be of any use to anyone.
>
> If it is about not fixing the page myself

That would have been an option; it is a Wiki, after all.

> then I'd better not to answer, but you asked.

You could have politely inquired if I still had outstanding work to 
complete.  Or, if you suspected that I may have overlooked some 
broken links, then you could have pointed out *which* those were.

> I did not fix it automatically, because there is no time to
> manually create filters for migration of content from PHPWiki to
> Drupal (with MediaWiki it could be made long ago -

The format for our Wiki pages, within the Drupal framework, *is* 
MediaWiki, so that hardly bears scrutiny as an excuse.

> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:PhpWiki_conversion) nor I have
> any automated framework to help me develop and test these filters.
>
> Now about fixing broken links to CVS instructions manually. To be
> honest, I have no idea about what official CVS repositories are and
> where are they. Information in old wiki (
> http://www.mingw.org/MinGWiki/index.php/official%20CVS ) contains
> links to...

If you were as clued up as you would seem to like us to believe, then 
you would know that...

> cygwin.com, sources.redhat.com,

...these two, and indeed sourceware.org, are all aliases for the same 
host...

> gcc.gnu.org

...this is the home of GCC, which we supply from upstream, but do not 
maintain ourselves, (and the same is true of binutils, which is 
hosted on sourceware.org)...

> and, finally, sourceforge.

...and this is the home of those packages which are *exclusively* 
ours, (from the perspective of who holds the responsibility for 
maintenance).

> Perhaps the information is outdated,

It wasn't, but I guess it could have been better presented; I hope the 
new version at http://www.mingw.org/wiki/Official_CVS_Repository is 
more informative.

> because I  
> remember you complaining about a lot of fragmentation among
> repositories as a reason to avoid using SVN and also mentioning
> sourceware and sourceforge as the only repositories

Yes, that is correct, for the packages we are *actively* involved in 
maintaining, (as an integrated project group).

> ( here, in this thread -
> http://www.nabble.com/forum/ViewPost.jtp?post=18860298&framed=y ) 
> But http://sourceware.org/projects.html doesn't mention MinGW among
> it's projects and SF CVS contains too much empty directories
> garbage to figure out what is alive.

Funny.  I didn't have too much difficulty with that.

Regards,
Keith.