On 25/04/2019 19:29, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 04:23, Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net mailto:nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net> wrote:
Le mercredi 24 avril 2019 à 16:14 -0400, Stephen Gallagher a écrit : > > FWIW, things should *not* be getting harder. Some folks just jumped > the gun and made changes they weren't supposed to (yet) and now the > Modularity team has a lot of fires to put out and very few resources > with which to do it. That’s not overly nice to the people that “jumped the gun”. They’re using modularity exactly as it was designed. Tragedy of the commons is an entirely predictible outcome, of something without a built-in sharing strategy.
That is my view of the matter also. There are a lot of packagers with way too many packages... and we have too many dependencies... so any tool which allows for that to be 'easier' is going to start an avalanche of packages getting moved out of the 'ursine commons'. As someone said yesterday to me, it is like showing that you can make a better living as a farmer using industrial farming techniques and then complaining that the small old-fashioned farmer no longer exists... or that a lot of people quit being farmers because those who used the industrial methods took over the market.
How does modularity make it easier though?
It seems to me that it does the exact opposite - instead of having one version of each package to maintain I now have multiple versions to worry about! I mean obviously I could convert to a module and only maintain one version but what would be the point? There would still be extra metadata relating to the module to maintain anyway.
Tom