5 ms·

> community developers requesting access to help were being ignored This is not true, I have not been contacted. I learned from Fedora's decision to replace Ds

> community developers requesting access to help were being ignored This is not true, I have not been contacted. I learned from Fedora's decision to replace Dstat with PCP months after it was already decided. So it's not like I have had a choice. The choices I have today are: 1. Continue with a project, while Fedora/RHEL is shipping a tool by the same name (with 90% of my code) 2. Rename the original Dstat project, which would be silly 3. Discontinue the project Option 3 is the path of least resistance. Option 1 and 2 would not bring any joy. At least someone will be paid for maintaining the tool.

fooker 7y ago
GitHub PRs being ignored seems totally true. https://github.com/dagwieers/dstat/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed https://github.com/dagwieers/dstat/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclos...
- dagwieers 7y ago
  Sure, and Red Hat being paid for RHEL shipping Dstat for a decade could have helped out. But instead they decided to replace it. And as a result I don't see a point continuing a project with the same name.
  - mehrdadn 7y ago
    >>>> community developers requesting access to help were being ignored >>> This is not true >> GitHub PRs being ignored seems totally true. > Sure, and Red Hat being paid for RHEL shipping Dstat for a decade could have helped out. But instead they decided to replace it. It's one thing to be upset due to a belief that Red Hat/others are at fault, but why lie to make your point?
    - dagwieers 7y ago
      Who lied about this ? It's pretty clear we didn't accepted any PRs since December 2016 until Red Hat decided to replace our code, which started early June 2018. That's 18 months. If I am upset about anything, it is this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1614277#c7 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1614277#c7
      - irishsultan 7y ago
        > Who lied about this ? > It's pretty clear we didn't accepted any PRs since December 2016 until Red Hat decided to replace our code, which started early June 2018. That's 18 months. You are asking: "why didn't RH help out", you also didn't accept any pull requests. That surely would answer the question about why they didn't bother with pull request. The question is then, how exactly do you think they have helped?
        dagwieers 7y ago
        And where is the lie? Maybe you should read the announcement and leave it at that.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- mehrdadn 7y ago
  Which PRs are you talking about? PRs I see there are either all from the last 4 hours or from 2016 and earlier that were merged.
  - op00to 7y ago
    4 hours ago was the last update to the PR, the pull requests are from years ago.
    - mehrdadn 7y ago
      Oh wow, didn't realize. Yeah I see now. Thanks.
  - dagwieers 7y ago
    As part of archiving the project, I closed all open issues and PRs. That was what Github recommended me to do and I deemed best for everyone involved.
billfruit 7y ago
But isn't red hat calling their version 'pcp-dstat' and not simply 'dstat', so they aren't shipping with the exact same name.
- loeg 7y ago
  They install a symlink from plain "dstat" to pcp-dstat. That's the exact same name part and plausibly objectionable.
  - bonzini 7y ago
    That is done so that existing scripts keep working. Nobody complains about the LLVM linker installing itself as /usr/bin/ld, or systemd providing /sbin/init, do they?
    - loeg 7y ago
      I understand why they did it, but also why the author is complaining about it.
      - dagwieers 7y ago
        I am not really complaining, maybe unsatisfied of the direction it took and the consequences to other distributions without having a say. But maybe people fancy the new PCP Dstat and accept their losses. In any case, money rules the world, Open Source ran by volunteers is dying and becomes less and less attractive.
    - JdeBP 7y ago
      Actually, yes they did. The use of /sbin/init was something that came up during the Debian Hoo-Hah. The conclusion was that it should be a symbolic link, and that there should be distinct packages providing that link and providing the real executable program image file that it points to. * https://packages.debian.org/search?suite=jessie&searchon=contents&keywords=%2Fsbin%2Finit https://packages.debian.org/search?suite=jessie&searchon=con...

fooker 7y ago

GitHub PRs being ignored seems totally true. https://github.com/dagwieers/dstat/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed https://github.com/dagwieers/dstat/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclos...

dagwieers 7y ago
Sure, and Red Hat being paid for RHEL shipping Dstat for a decade could have helped out. But instead they decided to replace it. And as a result I don't see a point continuing a project with the same name.
- mehrdadn 7y ago
  >>>> community developers requesting access to help were being ignored >>> This is not true >> GitHub PRs being ignored seems totally true. > Sure, and Red Hat being paid for RHEL shipping Dstat for a decade could have helped out. But instead they decided to replace it. It's one thing to be upset due to a belief that Red Hat/others are at fault, but why lie to make your point?
  - dagwieers 7y ago
    Who lied about this ? It's pretty clear we didn't accepted any PRs since December 2016 until Red Hat decided to replace our code, which started early June 2018. That's 18 months. If I am upset about anything, it is this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1614277#c7 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1614277#c7
    - irishsultan 7y ago
      > Who lied about this ? > It's pretty clear we didn't accepted any PRs since December 2016 until Red Hat decided to replace our code, which started early June 2018. That's 18 months. You are asking: "why didn't RH help out", you also didn't accept any pull requests. That surely would answer the question about why they didn't bother with pull request. The question is then, how exactly do you think they have helped?
      - dagwieers 7y ago
        And where is the lie? Maybe you should read the announcement and leave it at that.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
mehrdadn 7y ago
Which PRs are you talking about? PRs I see there are either all from the last 4 hours or from 2016 and earlier that were merged.
- op00to 7y ago
  4 hours ago was the last update to the PR, the pull requests are from years ago.
  - mehrdadn 7y ago
    Oh wow, didn't realize. Yeah I see now. Thanks.
- dagwieers 7y ago
  As part of archiving the project, I closed all open issues and PRs. That was what Github recommended me to do and I deemed best for everyone involved.

billfruit 7y ago

But isn't red hat calling their version 'pcp-dstat' and not simply 'dstat', so they aren't shipping with the exact same name.

loeg 7y ago
They install a symlink from plain "dstat" to pcp-dstat. That's the exact same name part and plausibly objectionable.
- bonzini 7y ago
  That is done so that existing scripts keep working. Nobody complains about the LLVM linker installing itself as /usr/bin/ld, or systemd providing /sbin/init, do they?
  - loeg 7y ago
    I understand why they did it, but also why the author is complaining about it.
    - dagwieers 7y ago
      I am not really complaining, maybe unsatisfied of the direction it took and the consequences to other distributions without having a say. But maybe people fancy the new PCP Dstat and accept their losses. In any case, money rules the world, Open Source ran by volunteers is dying and becomes less and less attractive.
  - JdeBP 7y ago
    Actually, yes they did. The use of /sbin/init was something that came up during the Debian Hoo-Hah. The conclusion was that it should be a symbolic link, and that there should be distinct packages providing that link and providing the real executable program image file that it points to. * https://packages.debian.org/search?suite=jessie&searchon=contents&keywords=%2Fsbin%2Finit https://packages.debian.org/search?suite=jessie&searchon=con...