At 12:40 AM 9/24/2009 +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>Come on phillip, no one is "plotting" against you.
Perhaps this is a language issue. When I said, "if Tarek is too busy
projecting hidden plots onto everything I say and do," I meant that
you were acting as if I were plotting against *you*, not the other
way around. (For example, you described one of my proposals as
"suspicious", in a context that made it appear you were concerned it
would undermine your plans for Distribute.)
However, I find it "suspicious" myself, that, rather than actually
address *any* of the substantial issues I brought up, you chose to
re-argue points I'm not even disputing.
For example, is it really necessary to make *every* post of yours
that mentions me include an essay on how long it's been since the
last setuptools release? As I said below, I don't see how that's
remotely relevant to the value of my contributions... but somehow
you find a way to bring it up constantly.
Do you feel so guilty about forking that you need to continually
re-justify yourself? If you're doing it on my account, do please
stop. AFAIR, I haven't said a negative thing about your fork since
it got off the ground, and have in fact said many positive things
about it. Indeed, the only negative thing I would currently say
about it, is that your characterization of it as a "friendly" fork is
not consistent with your public behavior and demeanor towards me.
Once again, I'd like for the badgering to stop. Thanks.
At 12:40 AM 9/24/2009 +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>You didn't maintain setuptools for a year while people where begging
>you to do bug fixes. You blessed Ian and Jim to take over but they
>are too busy to do it . I even sent them a mail on my side to try to
>So we asked you to bless someone else that was active (not in
>particular me as your mail seem to say) but you did not. So we
>forked. And people were pissed off at you. (Which I am sorry about)
>If a project is not maintained and if the maintainer does not open
>it to other maintainers, that s the way to go .
>And the fact that I took the lead of that fork doesn't mean I am
>offended because you did not bless me to maintain setuptools. It
>just means that I want to move forward and have a working tool for python 3.
>So let me make it clear that when you say "Tarek appears" it is
>something I have never said but rather something you are thinking
>like being the truth.
>Now for the Distribute work , your patches are very welcome. It s a
>>On Sep 23, 2009 10:47 PM, "P.J. Eby"
>>At 07:00 PM 9/23/2009 +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote: > > While it's
>>great to have Philipp being part of o...
>>Here's what actually happened, if anyone cares. Tarek and friends
>>announced a fork of setuptools. I reviewed the work and saw that
>>-- for the most part -- I was happy with it, and opined as how I
>>might be willing to bless the the "package inquisition" team as
>>official maintainers of the 0.6 branch of setuptools, so that I
>>could work on the fun bits I've long planned for 0.7, but never
>>felt free to start on while there was so much still needing to be done on 0.6.
>>However, just as I mentioned this, and suggested an option for what
>>I could do that would be helpful to his Distribute 0.7 project as
>>well as various other tools (e.g. implementing some of Jim Fulton's
>>long-requested features for better modularization of setuptools),
>>Tarek accused me of somehow trying to undermine his plans.
>>In addition, it appears Tarek was also offended by my earlier
>>statement that there were only a few people in the Python community
>>who had *already* earned my implicit trust to not only hack on
>>setuptools unsupervised, but also to take over its *future*
>>direction and BDFL-ship. (For example, Jim Fulton and Ian Bicking.)
>>Tarek, however, appears to have taken this to mean that I
>>personally thought he was an incompetent programmer or something
>>(when I actually had no opinion one way or the other), and ever
>>since he has taken to levelling potshots like the above at me on a
>>I've tried to ignore this and play nice, because he is actually
>>working on this stuff and I am not. But it's hard for me to
>>actually give any help in practice, if Tarek is too busy projecting
>>hidden plots onto everything I say and do.
>>If you read Tarek's distutils-sig posts, it appears my
>>already-existing trust in Ian and Jim was not only a personal
>>insult to Tarek, but also a plot to ensure that nobody with any
>>time to do so would ever work on setuptools, just as my excitement
>>about working on setuptools again was a plot to steal thunder from his fork.
>>All I want is for good stuff to happen for setuptools users and
>>Python users in general, so I don't think all the suspicion and
>>backbiting is merited. I certainly don't appreciate it, and I
>>would like it to stop. It also isn't even relevant to the thread,
>>since my lack of work on setuptools says exactly zero about the
>>merits or lack thereof of Tarek's proposals for the distutils!
>>Hell, I *support* the bulk of Tarek's setup.cfg proposal, and don't
>>even object to him Pronouncing it or cutting off the
>>discussion! My only issue on Python-Dev was his inaccurate
>>implication that it was a SIG consensus rather than a pronouncement
>>on it. There is and was no need for any of this to get personal,
>>and I have continually strived to keep my posts here and
>>distutils-sig civil, even when I didn't feel like being civil in
>>response to Tarek's jabs. I have in fact bent over backwards to be
>>*nice* to Tarek, because he seemed so damn sensitive about
>>everything. Apparently, however, this does not actually help things. :-(