2 ms·

>How can you be discussing how to create issues if you don't even know how to get the software in the first place to discover issues with? How do you even know

by jasode 6y ago

>How can you be discussing how to create issues if you don't even know how to get the software in the first place to discover issues with? How do you even know of the software if you had not already found a place which could contain the starting point for your process? Why is this question so strange to you? The end user usage of a tool can be much more widely known than the workflow development of it. Let's take a look at Youtube-dl specifically: Go to "http://youtube-dl.org/ http://youtube-dl.org/" ... There are only 3 obvious web pages: (1) Home (2) Download (3) About From there, you can download some binaries to use the software but there is no mention of any source host to enter a "git clone" to then later do a "git shortlog --summary --numbered --email". It is way easier to get the end user software to run than clone the git tree. For some reason, your reasoning assumes they are always tied together but youtube-dl is an example where they are not. (It sorta used to be tied together when the youtube-dl webpage's "dev repository" link to Github actually worked. It doesn't work now. See the "ex nihilo" problem?) And btw, a git clone doesn't help for sensitive (aka legally uncertain) projects where contributors don't enter real valid email addresses and/or the use fake email to avoid spam. (This is a general statement and not a email address validity test of youtube-dl maintainers specifically.) Also, a "git clone" is a barrier for non-programmer end users who just want to report a bug. The Github repo (or mailing list) was a logical place (Schelling Point) for that type of activity rather than cloning a repo that the end user doesn't need. >The starting point, however, is nothing more than that. But some starting points matter more than others. >If you think that there are no adversaries out to kill Linux, you'd be sorely mistaken, This is not engaging with the spirit of what I wrote. Surely, you realize we were talking about adversaries such as RIAA/MPAA/DMCA using legal threats for takedowns and not business competitors such as Microsoft that tried to squash Linux. >, but it's moot as it has no single points of failure. Everyone works on their own trees, This is a 100% true statement about no SPOF that is not relevant for this youtube-dl discussion. We already know hundreds (thousands) of people have already git cloned youtube-dl and some have even re-uploaded copies back to Github. But all that copying misses the point of all the various threads in the last week where people wonder where the "blessed repo" with PRs/issues/etc will live that's resistant to censoring. Repeating the "no SPOF nature of distributed git" is not making progress in that discussion.

arghwhat 6y ago
> Let's take a look at Youtube-dl specifically: So you're going to take a project that does not at all use emails in their workflow as an example for email based workflows? Brilliant. Have you perhaps considered that maybe, if a project actively used emails in any part of their process, maybe addresses would have been more visible? If only we had the means to write arbitrary relevant text on a page such as the one you linked... > But some starting points matter more than others. It objectively does not. Everyone starts once. It only matters for recruitment. However, as you yourself seem to accept "youtube-dl.org" as an acceptable starting point, which can contain arbitrary information in any form, then there is nothing more to discuss here. > ... is not making progress in that discussion. ... Like every argument you've made so far. As this point, I'll consider the discussion as over by three-fold repetition. Everything you have presented has already been answered (directly or indirectly), and the counter-scenarios are all faulty (e.g. discussing doomsday scenarious with no ability to share maintainer addresses yet accepting a website, using a non-email based project as reference for an email workflow, yadda yadda). I'll take my leave.

by jasode 6y ago

arghwhat 6y ago

> Let's take a look at Youtube-dl specifically: So you're going to take a project that does not at all use emails in their workflow as an example for email based workflows? Brilliant. Have you perhaps considered that maybe, if a project actively used emails in any part of their process, maybe addresses would have been more visible? If only we had the means to write arbitrary relevant text on a page such as the one you linked... > But some starting points matter more than others. It objectively does not. Everyone starts once. It only matters for recruitment. However, as you yourself seem to accept "youtube-dl.org" as an acceptable starting point, which can contain arbitrary information in any form, then there is nothing more to discuss here. > ... is not making progress in that discussion. ... Like every argument you've made so far. As this point, I'll consider the discussion as over by three-fold repetition. Everything you have presented has already been answered (directly or indirectly), and the counter-scenarios are all faulty (e.g. discussing doomsday scenarious with no ability to share maintainer addresses yet accepting a website, using a non-email based project as reference for an email workflow, yadda yadda). I'll take my leave.