Re: Bug#858229: ITP: passh -- passh: a pass fork - stores, retrieves, generates, and synchronizes passwords securely.
- Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 08:09:50 +0100
- From: Christian Seiler <christian@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Bug#858229: ITP: passh -- passh: a pass fork - stores, retrieves, generates, and synchronizes passwords securely.
On 03/20/2017 07:43 AM, Christian Seiler wrote:
> And while that shouldn't be part of the package description later on,
> a short comment in the ITP why a fork was required would also be nice.
> Did the original project just not want to merge this? What's the use
> case for these changes that can't be supported by the original?
I've done some digging in the mailing list for the original upstream
project and found this thread:
Specifically take a look at this message from the author of the original
The fork appears to have happened after that, but wasn't mentioned at
all on the upstream mailing list.
I haven't looked at the changes specifically, so I can't comment on the
issue of code quality at all, but that a relatively new user  forks
the entire project immediately after being shot down a bit for a patch
series (where the response was maybe a bit harsh, but not entirely
negative) doesn't instill me with a lot of confidence in the fork,
especially since the author of the fork hasn't mentioned any specific
use case why the changed functionality is needed at all, as far as I
can tell. (And making --help show extensions was something that devs of
the original project were interested in including regardless.)
Just my 2¢.