[ANN] Migrated Artefact to GitHub

Hi guille

I deeply appreciated that you spent your time to bring Artefact to Pharo 70
and in general all the positive energy you put around Pharo.
I love Iceberg! and more!

I quit these mailing-lists in the past because of these little
aggressions, the "You should do that"
I registered today again to this mailing list just to publicly talk to
you, while I could come to your office (I will do it too).

I did a port of Artefact to Pharo 60 a while ago and started to fix
Artefact aspects I did not like and I would like to integrate my fixes
to yours. Please let me know where it is. :)

I do not care of the history because I prefer the future. If people
care then this is their duties. Easy.  If they are not happy. This is
THEIR PROBLEM. You see people often tells me that I cannot control and
that github is decentralised. It is! So enjoy but @People try to avoid
to piss on good will of others.

Now sorry Norbert your point that Guillemo would be rude because he spent
his time to help Milton and made sure that Artefact in Pharo 70 is clearly
out of context and misplaced. You see I did the same in
github.com/olivierauverlot because I needed it. And this is like that.
Period.
You are not happy. This is ok. You do not like it. This is ok too.

This is several times that I noticed that your are not nice with
emails so do the same than me: think about the impact on others. You
have no idea about what guille is doing and what it is paid for and
this is certainly not to fix Artefact. And you may notice that we know
what is to work on others unmaintained code because we do it all the
time, we even create documentation on systems we do not understand
because some people are too busy to write method and class comments so
imagine documentation.

So I would like to thanks again guille and I would like to have
artefact on Pharo 70.

Stef

My last point on it.
if the philosophy is "I do not care about my software, but you have to
do it" then do not count me in.

Stef

On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 12:47 PM Stephane Ducasse
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> You see you won. Guille removed its repo and I understand him.
> I will now count how many months it will take for having artefact
> working in P7.
>
>
>
> Peter when I say that I do not have time, I really mean it. I have two
> reports to write for end of september.
> Not counting that updated pharo by example could be build anymore and
> that we need it for the mooc starting
> 8th of october, not counting that we have 4 new people arriving in the
> team and many many other things.
>
> Stef
> On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 12:41 PM Peter Uhnak <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Stef,
> >
> > I understand that everyone is short on time, but I consider not preserving the history problematic for two reasons
> >
> > * it is appropriating someone else's work as one's own -- this seems borderline illegal, or at the very least in violation of MIT license
> > * it is sending bad signals to potential contributors that we can scrub them anytime we want
> >
> > as you yourself have said:
> > > @People try to avoid to piss on good will of others.
> > Yet this is what it feels like to some when traces of their contributions are voided.
> >
> > I've invested a ton of time to alleviate this process as much as possible, and I can tell you for a fact that people are _really_ happy that the authorship is preserved.
> > Not to mention that the history itself is valuable if you know how to use it (and I very regularly look when a particular piece of code was written when debugging issues).
> >
> > That being said, if you have issues with migrating or think that it can be streamlined even further,
> > please let me know and I'd be happy to help you or streamline the tool even further.
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 10:23 AM Stephane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi guille
> >>
> >> I deeply appreciated that you spent your time to bring Artefact to Pharo 70
> >> and in general all the positive energy you put around Pharo.
> >> I love Iceberg! and more!
> >>
> >> I quit these mailing-lists in the past because of these little
> >> aggressions, the "You should do that"
> >> I registered today again to this mailing list just to publicly talk to
> >> you, while I could come to your office (I will do it too).
> >>
> >> I did a port of Artefact to Pharo 60 a while ago and started to fix
> >> Artefact aspects I did not like and I would like to integrate my fixes
> >> to yours. Please let me know where it is. :)
> >>
> >> I do not care of the history because I prefer the future. If people
> >> care then this is their duties. Easy.  If they are not happy. This is
> >> THEIR PROBLEM. You see people often tells me that I cannot control and
> >> that github is decentralised. It is! So enjoy but @People try to avoid
> >> to piss on good will of others.
> >>
> >> Now sorry Norbert your point that Guillemo would be rude because he spent
> >> his time to help Milton and made sure that Artefact in Pharo 70 is clearly
> >> out of context and misplaced. You see I did the same in
> >> github.com/olivierauverlot because I needed it. And this is like that.
> >> Period.
> >> You are not happy. This is ok. You do not like it. This is ok too.
> >>
> >> This is several times that I noticed that your are not nice with
> >> emails so do the same than me: think about the impact on others. You
> >> have no idea about what guille is doing and what it is paid for and
> >> this is certainly not to fix Artefact. And you may notice that we know
> >> what is to work on others unmaintained code because we do it all the
> >> time, we even create documentation on systems we do not understand
> >> because some people are too busy to write method and class comments so
> >> imagine documentation.
> >>
> >> So I would like to thanks again guille and I would like to have
> >> artefact on Pharo 70.
> >>
> >> Stef
> >>

Hi Guille,

    this issue is /really/ important to me.  People are helping me migrate VMMaker to GitHub and it is /treally/ important to the project that authorship history is maintained, because finding out who to ask when code is affected is essential.  VMMaker is large, very complex and has had many contributors.  Wiping authorship is unacceptable to me.  I'm glad that Peter's tool is being used in the migration.  Hence my responses below..

On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 4:34 AM Guillermo Polito <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 12:41 PM Peter Uhnak <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Stef,

I understand that everyone is short on time, but I consider not preserving the history problematic for two reasons

* it is appropriating someone else's work as one's own -- this seems borderline illegal, or at the very least in violation of MIT license

Not really. If the contributors are specified in the copyright, is it stealing?

Now, my point is manners. I got in 4/5 emails:

 - you're stupid because you did not use Peter's tool

 - you're inefficient because you took one hour to do it

 - you're stealing

The first two points show first one big problem that I've seem many times with people and software: missing context.

People think most of the time that "I would have done it better". But usually they don't take into account

 - the time constraints (I had one hour, and one hour I had)

 - the knowledge (where is the Artefact Repo?, why is it failing for Milton?, Do I know enough about metacello/streams/artefact to do it well?)

 - the working environment (does the person that did it have all the tools to work properly? does he have a healthy working environment? For example, I've worked on several big companies where you can find really bad environments...)

 - technical and not technical problems that are sometimes independent of the problem itself (take into account that for example, fighting against a metacello baseline is completely orthogonal to your tool or even iceberg, good internet connection)

All these details are important also at the end, and they should be put into the balance too when we make a judgement.

 

* it is sending bad signals to potential contributors that we can scrub them anytime we want

as you yourself have said:

> @People try to avoid to piss on good will of others.

Yet this is what it feels like to some when traces of their contributions are voided.

And this is my third point. This "stealing" idea is mainly a matter of manners.

I really hope nobody here really thinks I wanted to take credit for Olivier, Guillaume or any of the other contributors.

Still I preserved pointers to the original authors and their original website in google sites.

That's simply not good enough.  The minimum acceptable solution is that within Pharo, within a browser, one can find out who authored what method, class comment, and preferably class declaration (we don't have this yet).  Going outside to find out who authored is an unacceptable regression.

But in the case somebody did think that, I removed the repository to remove any doubt.

So again, I apologize if somebody felt offended, but I also prefer to not be called a thief.

Now, when I do stuff I'm not thinking about "oh yes, I'm getting famous", that would be pretty sad for me :/.

I do stuff because I just think it's useful.

I DON'T CARE personally about artefact, and I don't want to take credit for it.

I don't even care about the fu***ng 2 commits I did to port it to Pharo 7, I can tell anybody what I did so she/he can re-doit.

Because I don't use Artefact. Now, Somebody wants the "credit"? I could have even amended a commit and put anybody else as author.

But dot you see that voiding authorship a) gives the impression of stealing, and clearly opens you up to the accusation of stealing, no matter what your actual intent is?  And do you see that vitally important information is being lost?  If this application had, as VMMaker does, hundreds of contributors then tracking down who last modified what, which is really important information, is made much harder.

My problem here is people assuming stealing by default, instead of assuming, for example, mistake.

Imagine an alternative scenario:

 - X: "Hey Guille, could you add in the copyright X, and Y and Z? They also contributed to the project, you should take them into account..."

 - Guille: "Ah sure, sorry, this was not my intention, I'm so stupid, I forgot about Z. Commit push, done".

If instead of bashing on people, we wanted to discuss on how to actually FIX the thing, here are my 2 cents:

 - From a copyright perspective it should have been enough to check the licence file and name the contributors there

 - The history could have been retrieved in a separate branch and then merged (and look, we had the best of the two worlds!)

 - both of the things could have been then integrated through a pull request (luckily in less than one hour :))

Well, for me, it its not about copyright, it is about authorship, attribution and communication.  I /have/ to be able to determine original authors to have a chance at getting help with issues that arise.  I hope the use case helps motivate you to preserve authorship.

 

And at the end, with the apport of everybody we could have got a repository with history, baseline and working on pharo 7.

Now, from a human perspective, please let's try everybody to assume the best of the other by default.

That will just make all interactions much more healthy.

And please, this is not particularly directed to anybody, I've seen such remarks many times. Let's just think positive.

Problems can be fixed if we talk about them, but more specifically if we are looking for solutions.

_,,,^..^,,,_

best, Eliot