[aquaria] Is the project still alive?

[Andrew Church]

>That is how distributed version control works.  None of us have
>permission to directly update to the icculous source code-- nor should
>we, unless we work at Bit Blot --

Since you seem to be unfamiliar with the history of Aquaria, let me help
you out.  Bit Blot is a label created by Alec Holowka and Derek Yu for
Aquaria; the two have subsequently moved on to separate projects under
different labels.  icculus.org is (as I understand it) the website of
Ryan Gordon, who handled the Mac and Linux ports of Aquaria for the
Humble Indie Bundle.  The two are separate, unrelated entities.

>so we do our changes locally and send pull requests to Bit Blot (via
>the mailing list, I suppose).

I'm curious where you got that impression.  I've been on the list for
a while, and I don't recall Alec or Derek suggesting anything of the
sort.

>What we, the contributing community, can do is:
>
>1) Make our branches easy to integrate.  This means making them
>directly off the default icculous branch or other branches as much as
>possibly. (Andrew Church, I am pointing you out as a bad example here.
>I have had to untangle a bunch of your patches from each other to use
>them in my own repo.

So let me get this straight.  You would:
    (1) have me limit my changes to those which can be applied directly
        to the original source, rather than building upon those changes
        to improve the program further;
    (2) force Bit Blot (or Ryan) to manually pull patches from my
        repository; and
    (3) burden them with the not-insignificant work of resolving the
        conflicts between all those patches?
And you suggest that's better than my standing offer(*) to roll up and
mail any set of patches Ryan wants to integrate, in a form that can be
directly applied to the icculus repository?  Just trying to make sure
we're on the same page here.
(*) http://icculus.org/pipermail/aquaria/2010-June/000170.html,
    http://icculus.org/pipermail/aquaria/2010-August/000280.html

>We have opted to do #1.

Well, I don't know who in particular you mean by "we", but if you're not
interested in using my patches, I certainly won't force you to.

Hope that clears things up!

  --Andrew Church
    achurch at achurch.org
    http://achurch.org/