GeezerVison

Replace once with one day, and it seems fine.

'Reconcile' makes it sound as if there was a painful breakup but I can't really come up with a better word. 'Merge again' or 'team up again' is not really an improvement. LGTM, then.

I know that this is based on language I wrote a while back but looking at it now it raises more questions than it answers. What would it take to reconcile? Why aren't they already reconciled? And in order to answer those questions it would have to read like a letter of demands which I don't think anyone wants.

@mikeal

I agree that it raises questions but what doesn't. "This is a fork of joyent/node" also raises questions ("why?" for example).

The reason I propose to add this is because we want to make it clear that (at least for now) it's not a fork that will definitely go it's own direction (like mariadb or jenkins). As long as we're actively talking to Joyent, that's not the case. So I would suggest to accept that the statement doesn't answer every question anyone could ever ask, but we still show what our intentions are.

Maybe it would help to put a reference to the node advisory board in here?

-1.

The best thing to say in this readme is as little as necessary. Stick to the technical facts. We can discuss hopes and plans and feelings elsewhere.

@isaacs I'm gonna created an all new fork where the entire README is my feelings :)

@mikeal Call it mr.js and then you can be Mr. JavaScript.

I didn't say anything about feelings.

Hope is a feeling.

Hope is a feeling.

This just got so philosophical.

On Wednesday, December 3, 2014, Isaac Z. Schlueter [email protected]
wrote:

Hope is a feeling.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#45 (comment).

@isaacs @mikeal
Instead of twisting my words and ridiculing me - can you stay on topic please?

The best thing to say in this readme is as little as necessary.

Why? We should be a clear as possible without producing a massive piece of text.

Stick to the technical facts. We can discuss hopes and plans and feelings elsewhere.

I didn't say feelings. I would like to point out that the line before the one I inserted reads: "We intend to release, with increasing regularity, etc...". I do not see how this is categorically different than mentioning a hope (or whatever, a goal, an ideal) to reconcile with node. It certainly is a plan.

If you are against it, that's okay, then tell me what your problem really is.

Maybe you don't want to reconcile with node, or you think it's not important enough to mention in the readme, or you think it should not be widely known?

Readme does state intentions already (compatibility, release frequency), and "reconciliation" (or, should we say, "upstream merge"?) seems to be one of them.

So, it would be logical to add that.

@poscisaureus I apologize, I didn't mean my comments as ridicule at all.

I simply mean that I don't think this is the place to be talking about our plans re Joyent. It's the kind of thing that belongs in a roadmap or blog post.

This is only my opinion. If I'm in the minority here I'm happy to withdraw it. It's not a strongly held opinion.

@piscisaureus I was ridiculing @isaacs because I thought the concept of being "anti-feelings" was funny. I didn't mean to offend you and I apologize if I did.

I'm not opposed to reconciliation, I'm just concerned about what this messaging says about the project. This messaging isn't in a vacuum and the small comments Joyent has made thus far make it sound like they don't agree with a faster pace of progress on the grounds that it hurts stability. If that's the message they're going to pursue going forward I think the strongest messaging we could have is "this is what we believe in and what we are doing." Unlike Joyent we have a clear way that people from Joyent, or anyone else, can get involved in the project and participate in decision making. The reconciliation ball is really in their court and if they aren't talking about it then I think it might be confusing for us to be talking about it.

Was a resolution ever determined here?

I would say that there is enough negativity about this added language in this thread that it's probably not mergable as is; I suspect that it may be too difficult to come up with satisfactory wording that everyone agrees on and the whole topic of iojs/io.js and joyent/node reconciliation should be left to adjacent blog posts and discussions.

@rvagg Agreed. This isn't something that needs to be part of the repo itself.