7 ms·

I don't know anything about the politics involved, and I don't even use nano (vim guy myself), but I just ran this out of curiosity: zx2c4@thinkpad ~/nano

by zx2c4 10y ago

I don't know anything about the politics involved, and I don't even use nano (vim guy myself), but I just ran this out of curiosity: zx2c4@thinkpad ~/nano $ git shortlog -sne --since '3 years ago' 1298 Benno Schulenberg <bensberg@justemail.net> 64 Chris Allegretta <chrisa@asty.org> 6 Jordi Mallach <jordi@gnu.org> 3 Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> 3 Mike Scalora <mike@scalora.org> 2 Rishabh Dave <rishabhddave@gmail.com> Seems like Benno is clearly the driving force behind the project.

Sir_Cmpwn 10y ago
With a record like that I think he should be allowed to do whatever he pleases with the project.
- pekk 10y ago
  Committing to an existing project doesn't give you exclusive license rights over the project.
- pessimizer 10y ago
  It's free software, everybody is allowed to do whatever they please with the project. GNU doesn't have to support or endorse it, though.
- ArneBab 10y ago
  I don’t think so. With that argument, anyone could take over any project just because he/she has more free time than the current maintainer. Would you want someone who steps up and does a lot of work in a project you started to suddenly tell you that he/she will now change the vision of the project and turn it in ways you don’t like? Let’s assume that you take your time to write clean code, do changes slowly and deliberately and think long about how to do something right before you start coding. Then someone steps up and does lots of cool things in a flurry of activity, but does not do them right and you already see the maintenance fallout from that approaching. Would you want that contributor to take over the project and use the name you established for this new kind of project? As a non-programming example: I’m writing a roleplaying system, and it took me several years to get from EWS-2.6 to having the concepts for EWS-3.0 nailed down — though without having finished text. If someone came in and did lots of work, I would still not want to see an EWS-3.0 which violates core principles I set down for the system. People are free to do that, but they have to do that in their own space, not in the space I created. Also changing the name all over the source code in the main version tracking repository is a pretty hostile step. It implies that the other one now considers the project his/her own. Essentially Benno should have made a bano, but I think that just turning GNU nano into his own project isn’t OK.
  - gravypod 10y ago
    Isn't that the idea of open source software? The best maintainer is the one in charge. I don't think Linus would object to someone replacing him if anyone was more qualified for the job. Hell he even openly encourages people to fork Linux, make improvements, and follow the license (copy left). I see nothing wrong with the most active/best maintainer having say over the project's future.
    - EmanueleAina 10y ago
      Arguably, if the situation is the one described, I'm not sure what "the best maintainer" is. :( Changing name and leaving the old project eventually die or be subsumed by the fork (like egcs did with gcc) would have probably been a better choice.
    - wott 10y ago
      > Isn't that the idea of open source software? The best maintainer is the one in charge. There is no reason why the first sentence should imply the second.
    - sangnoir 10y ago
      > Isn't that the idea of open source software? The best maintainer is the one in charge. No, not really. Open source embraces the idea of forking - a hostile take over of the original project is most definitely not the idea - but it can be allowed depending on the projects charter. Also - most active contribute =/= maintainer - I'm sure Red Hat adds more code to the kernel than Linus these days, but Linus is still the 'decider'. To conclude, Benno is free to fork GNU Nano, but it will not be GNU Nano - he can call it 'New Nano' if he likes.
      - digi_owl 10y ago
        Pretty much. Especially if one i trying to introduce major changes. Edit: That said, there seems to be more hostile takeovers happening these days. Perhaps because a new gen of devs care as much, or more, about brand as about code quality...
- _kst_ 10y ago
  Of course he can do anything he pleases with nano. (So can you, and so can I.) He just doesn't get to do anything he pleases with GNU nano.
- sudhirkhanger 10y ago
  I think he should have renamed the project when he forked it. This sounds disingenuous to me.
infodroid 10y ago
Was it really necessary to also publish their email addresses? -- Edit: I know the addresses appear in the Git repo. But they are not accessible to web crawlers over HTTP. Most code hosting services require a login to see them as a spam control measure. Which is also why I think they should be obfuscated at least.
- andrewguenther 10y ago
  I mean, they're right there in the git log
- Uberphallus 10y ago
  Publish? It's public already.
- rnhmjoj 10y ago
  Spammers are already using emails from git repositories, especially from Github.
- chris_7 10y ago
  For whom is spam actually a problem? Filters are absurdly good.
  - infodroid 10y ago
    It can be additional work for people self-hosting their mail. But I base that on my own experience many years out of date.
  - noobermin 10y ago
    Depends on the email service. Colleagues of mine who work at military research lab have their emails filtered to junk in my email but then I routinely receive email notices in my inbox from university emails warning me my "Account is expired/full/overdue" and I must take immediate action by clicking on a link. Hint: I think gmail filters are good. The rest? Not so much.
  - profmonocle 10y ago
tomcam 10y ago
Snap
luckydude 10y ago
2 orders of magnitude more commits? Yes, agree. And the argument that claims "a flurry of activity" doesn't wash. This is a bit more than a flurry.
moloh 10y ago
Why only 3 years ago? Maybe 10 years will be little more accurate? git shortlog -sne --since '10 years ago' 1298 Benno Schulenberg <bensberg@justemail.net> 481 David Lawrence Ramsey <pooka109@gmail.com> 382 Chris Allegretta <chrisa@asty.org> 28 Jordi Mallach <jordi@gnu.org> 3 Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> 3 Mike Scalora <mike@scalora.org> 2 Rishabh Dave <rishabhddave@gmail.com> git shortlog -sne --since '15 years ago' 2528 David Lawrence Ramsey <pooka109@gmail.com> 1298 Benno Schulenberg <bensberg@justemail.net> 803 Chris Allegretta <chrisa@asty.org> 355 Jordi Mallach <jordi@gnu.org> 3 Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> 3 Mike Scalora <mike@scalora.org> 2 Rishabh Dave <rishabhddave@gmail.com> 1 Rocco Corsi <rocco.corsi@sympatico.ca> Well, now looks little different...
- threeseed 10y ago
  2001 was when Windows XP was released. That's at least a few "eras" in computing ago. Any open source project is only as good as it is today not what it was.
  - digi_owl 10y ago
    Then again, in many orgs XP is barely being replaced with Windows 7...
  - belorn 10y ago
    If you like to test it, I would be very interested in the result of trying to get linux running with only code written from the last 3 years. I would assume that almost a majority of the code would be there, but then I would also assume that most of the essential core is basically untouched except for security patches. It would make for a very interesting read and a HN worthy article. Have kernel images doubled in the last years?

by zx2c4 10y ago

Sir_Cmpwn 10y ago

With a record like that I think he should be allowed to do whatever he pleases with the project.

pekk 10y ago
Committing to an existing project doesn't give you exclusive license rights over the project.
pessimizer 10y ago
It's free software, everybody is allowed to do whatever they please with the project. GNU doesn't have to support or endorse it, though.
ArneBab 10y ago
I don’t think so. With that argument, anyone could take over any project just because he/she has more free time than the current maintainer. Would you want someone who steps up and does a lot of work in a project you started to suddenly tell you that he/she will now change the vision of the project and turn it in ways you don’t like? Let’s assume that you take your time to write clean code, do changes slowly and deliberately and think long about how to do something right before you start coding. Then someone steps up and does lots of cool things in a flurry of activity, but does not do them right and you already see the maintenance fallout from that approaching. Would you want that contributor to take over the project and use the name you established for this new kind of project? As a non-programming example: I’m writing a roleplaying system, and it took me several years to get from EWS-2.6 to having the concepts for EWS-3.0 nailed down — though without having finished text. If someone came in and did lots of work, I would still not want to see an EWS-3.0 which violates core principles I set down for the system. People are free to do that, but they have to do that in their own space, not in the space I created. Also changing the name all over the source code in the main version tracking repository is a pretty hostile step. It implies that the other one now considers the project his/her own. Essentially Benno should have made a bano, but I think that just turning GNU nano into his own project isn’t OK.
- gravypod 10y ago
  Isn't that the idea of open source software? The best maintainer is the one in charge. I don't think Linus would object to someone replacing him if anyone was more qualified for the job. Hell he even openly encourages people to fork Linux, make improvements, and follow the license (copy left). I see nothing wrong with the most active/best maintainer having say over the project's future.
  - EmanueleAina 10y ago
    Arguably, if the situation is the one described, I'm not sure what "the best maintainer" is. :( Changing name and leaving the old project eventually die or be subsumed by the fork (like egcs did with gcc) would have probably been a better choice.
  - wott 10y ago
    > Isn't that the idea of open source software? The best maintainer is the one in charge. There is no reason why the first sentence should imply the second.
  - sangnoir 10y ago
    > Isn't that the idea of open source software? The best maintainer is the one in charge. No, not really. Open source embraces the idea of forking - a hostile take over of the original project is most definitely not the idea - but it can be allowed depending on the projects charter. Also - most active contribute =/= maintainer - I'm sure Red Hat adds more code to the kernel than Linus these days, but Linus is still the 'decider'. To conclude, Benno is free to fork GNU Nano, but it will not be GNU Nano - he can call it 'New Nano' if he likes.
    - digi_owl 10y ago
      Pretty much. Especially if one i trying to introduce major changes. Edit: That said, there seems to be more hostile takeovers happening these days. Perhaps because a new gen of devs care as much, or more, about brand as about code quality...
_kst_ 10y ago
Of course he can do anything he pleases with nano. (So can you, and so can I.) He just doesn't get to do anything he pleases with GNU nano.
sudhirkhanger 10y ago
I think he should have renamed the project when he forked it. This sounds disingenuous to me.

infodroid 10y ago

Was it really necessary to also publish their email addresses? -- Edit: I know the addresses appear in the Git repo. But they are not accessible to web crawlers over HTTP. Most code hosting services require a login to see them as a spam control measure. Which is also why I think they should be obfuscated at least.

andrewguenther 10y ago
I mean, they're right there in the git log
Uberphallus 10y ago
Publish? It's public already.
rnhmjoj 10y ago
Spammers are already using emails from git repositories, especially from Github.
chris_7 10y ago
For whom is spam actually a problem? Filters are absurdly good.
- infodroid 10y ago
  It can be additional work for people self-hosting their mail. But I base that on my own experience many years out of date.
- noobermin 10y ago
  Depends on the email service. Colleagues of mine who work at military research lab have their emails filtered to junk in my email but then I routinely receive email notices in my inbox from university emails warning me my "Account is expired/full/overdue" and I must take immediate action by clicking on a link. Hint: I think gmail filters are good. The rest? Not so much.
- profmonocle 10y ago

tomcam 10y ago

Snap

luckydude 10y ago

2 orders of magnitude more commits? Yes, agree. And the argument that claims "a flurry of activity" doesn't wash. This is a bit more than a flurry.

moloh 10y ago

Why only 3 years ago? Maybe 10 years will be little more accurate? git shortlog -sne --since '10 years ago' 1298 Benno Schulenberg <bensberg@justemail.net> 481 David Lawrence Ramsey <pooka109@gmail.com> 382 Chris Allegretta <chrisa@asty.org> 28 Jordi Mallach <jordi@gnu.org> 3 Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> 3 Mike Scalora <mike@scalora.org> 2 Rishabh Dave <rishabhddave@gmail.com> git shortlog -sne --since '15 years ago' 2528 David Lawrence Ramsey <pooka109@gmail.com> 1298 Benno Schulenberg <bensberg@justemail.net> 803 Chris Allegretta <chrisa@asty.org> 355 Jordi Mallach <jordi@gnu.org> 3 Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> 3 Mike Scalora <mike@scalora.org> 2 Rishabh Dave <rishabhddave@gmail.com> 1 Rocco Corsi <rocco.corsi@sympatico.ca> Well, now looks little different...

threeseed 10y ago
2001 was when Windows XP was released. That's at least a few "eras" in computing ago. Any open source project is only as good as it is today not what it was.
- digi_owl 10y ago
  Then again, in many orgs XP is barely being replaced with Windows 7...
- belorn 10y ago
  If you like to test it, I would be very interested in the result of trying to get linux running with only code written from the last 3 years. I would assume that almost a majority of the code would be there, but then I would also assume that most of the essential core is basically untouched except for security patches. It would make for a very interesting read and a HN worthy article. Have kernel images doubled in the last years?