Chocolatey-coreteampackages: cyg-get fails when cygwin32 and cygwin64 are both installed

[Mnuzz]

Traced the issue to cyg-get.ps1, the line below creates an array of two paths when both are found

    $cygRoot = @($local_key, $local_key6432) | ?{Test-Path $_} | Get-ItemProperty | Select-Object -ExpandProperty rootdir

Then the line here combines the paths for the 32 and 64 bit installations.

$cygwinsetup = "$cygRoot\cygwinsetup.exe"

[majkinetor]

Doesn't look it is designed to be used with both. You would need additional parameter also to designate which cygwin will get updated etc.

[majkinetor]

There is no such parameter. I just say that its not designed for that and it would need a bit of care before it can handle it. Given that such functionality probably isn't of interest to many users it doesn't pay to work it out. We do accept PRs however.

[majkinetor]

Dude.... what are you talking about?! This is not even a part of cygwin. Its a script that you can change your self in minutes.

[gep13]

@mnuzzolilo said...
Your job only gets harder

You refer to this as though this is a job, i.e. something that we are getting paid for, but let's be clear...

We aren't!

We welcome all contributions to this repository. Not all the community maintainers in this repository are familiar with the intricate inner workings of each and every single package, and we rely on other community members to help out on packages that they have an expertise in.

Granted, this model isn't perfect, but it is what we have available to us for now.

[gep13]

@mnuzzolilo said...
If no such person exists, it's good for a project to clearly label it as such so someone can be expect to have to submit a PR from the beginning.

I think we have to fundamentally disagree on this point.

This is an Open Source initiative, run by people in their own time, working around things like family and work commitments. There can be, and will not be (at least while I am involved in the project), any expectations placed on any maintainer of this repository, and as a result, people making use of the packages contained within this repo can't expect that an issue that they raise is going to get fixed.

The expectation should always be if you have found an issue, and are able to fix it, then that is the route that should be taken, as it is the most expedient way to get it corrected.

Raising an issue, as you did here, and expecting that someone is going to fix it on your behalf, when you make statements like this:

@mnuzzolilo said...
Glad to hear that you accept PRs but I don't work for free so maybe someone else would get to it.

Simply isn't going to fly.

[patriksvensson]

@mnuzzolilo I don't get it. You have no problem demanding support for software you use for free, but you're agitated when someone proposes that you help out? Why would they fix your problem for free? With that attitude I would say it's time to start paying the maintainers if you want something fixed...

[majkinetor]

Flame war, I like that !!!

If you are working for free, it's in your best interest to make it as easy on yourself as possible.

We are already doing just that - its easiest for us just to not do anything about it for the reasons already said.

Fair enough that there aren't anyone available who knows the package well

No, in fact, I know exactly what needs to be done here. I don't want to do it. Your problem is not big enough so that we need to loose hours doing it. There are more prompt issues BEFORE this one. Priority is a concept you will have to adopt.

I'd be happy to accept this philosophy of yours if you can point me to a well-cited essay or publication that establishes this as a better way to run an open source project.

Nonsence

If you want to respond that way, it's only hurting you, not me.

I am perfectly fine with it 'hurting me'. I don't use cygwin myself, its a kinda outated technology now.

My comments were suggestions on how to make your project better for the community, but instead you decided to turn it into a pissing match

You are describing your own behavior here. You even said you don't care, I can only imagine what kind of pissing match would be if you cared

Glad to hear that you accept PRs but I don't work for free so maybe someone else would get to it.

And this is the gist here. This sentence describes you as a person and it if it ever existed any chance of us fixing this because you want it, now it certainly doesn't, and it never will. You may learn , eventually, how to behave on open source projects (no PUBMED reference, sorry).

I don't work for free either. That is, I work for free on stuff I want, not on stuff you want. If you want it fixed so bad, and I don't, and YOU request MY time, we can always arrange something if you know what I mean :)

[majkinetor]

Furtheremore, you don't even have to use cyg-get, everything it does is achievable via cinst cygwin -ia ... or directly calling its package manager. Perhaps its time to learn a bit of tool u are using.

[ScottIsAFool]

"My main goal here is to assess the quality of the project governance, to see how you hold up to criticism and such."

For what purpose?

[ScottIsAFool]

Tip, this doesn't work: "I don't work for free so maybe someone else would get to it." :) hope that helps :)

[majkinetor]

I can't wait for your next big project with all this great insights you got from this conversation. :)

Sorry to waste your time

No need to appologize. You have every right to express your opinion, and we have every right to be against it.

[ScottIsAFool]

Ahhh, so the comments and language used was all part of a social experiment. Gotcha.

[ghuntley]

@mnuzzolilo

Cool story bro.

[ferventcoder]

@mnuzzolilo apologies you waited 11 months to hear back. The packages in this repo are maintained by over 10 folks so sometimes there is a tragedy of the commons, which it looks like you hit here.

@majkinetor is newer and has been going through and triaging older issues with these packages, and doing a terrific job of helping us get back on track here along with @AdmiringWorm. I do feel if you had opened this issue in the last month you would have received a prompt response.

I know there may be a misunderstanding on this repo based on the name but it is meant to be a repo where folks can put packages for the community package repository and @gep13 and I had differing opinions on what that should be at first, thus the confusion in the name versus the purpose. @gep13 convinced me otherwise.

Given this issue was filed so long ago I totally get your frustration, but it does not excuse your comments here. We work on mutual respect for folks, and when it is not reciprocated it can cause issues. The Chocolatey projects have a very simple etiquette guideline - https://github.com/chocolatey/choco/blob/master/README.md#etiquette-regarding-communication

HTH

[ghuntley]

<3 the etiquette section. Totally going to steal that, right on point.

[majkinetor]

Yeah, good one, added it to 1.1.1.

[markrendle]

@mnuzzolilo If you're interested in Open Source Project management, maybe read some articles on it instead of trolling* actual projects. Start with this: https://rfc.zeromq.org/spec:42/C4/

Chocolatey team editors note: The rest of the comments here have been hidden pending further review. They were not seen as constructive for the conversation.

[ferventcoder]

Probably time to lock this thread.

[gep13]

NOTE: For anyone who finds this and was wondering what all the conversation was around, it looks as though @Nuzzerino has chosen to delete all the comments that they left in this thread.

[gep13]

@ghuntley captured a screenshot of the conversation, and I have decided to paste it here for clarity on what was discussed in this issue.

NOTE: In the screenshot, the name of the original author was @mnuzzolilo, however, shortly after this issue was closed, this was changed to @Nuzzerino, and it is now @Mnuzz.

https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/1271146/20642707/15805006-b40e-11e6-98cf-f28fab297fc4