[aquaria] Is the project still alive?
achurch+aquaria at achurch.org
Tue Apr 12 06:27:48 EDT 2011
Apology accepted. As I mentioned to Ryan, I should have the patches
ready to pull soon, so hopefully we'll be able to get everything back
under one roof again.
achurch at achurch.org
>I clearly owe you a few apologies.
>You were porting to a whole new operating system; I do not mean to claim
>that you could have build feature branches directly from the icculus
>source code under those circumstances. You could not have. When I
>pointed you out as a bad example, first, I was kind of teasing you. I
>apologize for not adding a smiley or something to make that clear; I
>sometimes forget to over-emote on the Internet. I remain impressed by
>what you've done with the Aquaria sources and did use several of your
>patches. Second, I was only pointing you out as a bad example of what
>best practices are. You were not in a position to follow them, and so
>you did not, and that is okay. I also apologize for not writing that
>Your offer to roll up a bunch of patches and send them in is generous,
>I think. I would certainly take advantage of it were I to have worked
>at Bit Blot (and you are right, I am unfamiliar with its history and
>was surprised to learn it was defunct). But my point was that massive
>intermingled changes like yours are difficult to integrate for a third
>party. I was trying to point out things we can do to make changes EASY
>to integrate. And a patch roll-up is one of those things, yes. I did
>not know that you made that offer.
>Finally, I say "we" have opted not to fork because I do not remember
>much discussion of forking Aquaria on the mailing list, so I concluded
>that no one was seriously considering the idea. Until now, that is.
>On Apr 11, 2011, at 4:19 AM, Andrew Church wrote:
>>> 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
>>> 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,
>>> 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!
>aquaria mailing list
>aquaria at icculus.org
More information about the aquaria