On 05/02/2013 11:46 AM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
As a matter of fact, yes, it is 'bogus'.
It's bogus because it was being portrayed as the official upstream on
python.org, without ever asking Jerome or myself if that was OK.
[note altered From, I'm not speaking for my employer]
Well no. See https://pypi.python.org/pypi/rtslib-fb , the explanatory
text was exactly the same when it was at the old URL. Seriously, I was
not trying to be sneaky. I'm sorry I made that mistake, I'm sorry for
any confusion it caused. I realize this is not the ideal situation and
I'm trying to make things as clear as possible given the fork.
In the future, please avoid making decisions in private wrt to upstream
rtslib/configshell/targetcli that effect the entire ecosystem if your
not going to consider the ramifications of your actions all the way
through.
Entire ecosystem? RTS hasn't cared about building a community around the
user tools at all. There is no bug tracking, no source tarballs, no
recent git tags, no separate mailing list, no discussion of patches, and
a continuing devaluation of potential contributors by insisting on
licensing advantages for the initial copyright holder. You had me rename
the package on pypi but you haven't put up anything in its place. No
wonder people are confused.
Recently I've started a separate targetcli-fb mailing list[1]. I'd like
RTS to do the same, so we can keep target-devel focused exclusively on
the kernel code. We seem to do okay when things stay focused on the
kernel code.
Regards -- Andy
[1] https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/targetcli-fb-devel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe target-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
