>What bugs me here is not so much that stuff gets broken now and then, but this nonchalant attitude to breaking things, and lack of acknowledgement for others that have to wipe up the mess.
You don't have to wipe up the mess. I didn't ask you to wipe up the mess, and I didn't expect you to. I also suspect you're conflating my beliefs about whether or not Anarki should be willing to make breaking changes when necessary with some general lack of regard for whether or not anything works at all, and that's not the case.
I'm new to lisps, to this lisp in particular, to this framework, and to working in a team. I admit (and have admitted) that I make mistakes and I've picked up some bad habits that I need to correct. If I know about an issue, I will gladly deal with it.
But, as to the specific issues you listed... I don't know what happened with the css (it worked for me when I pushed it but your comment that it might have needed testing in other browsers is correct,) but #104 wasn't broken, but misconfigured. And you've explained at length already why that entire commit was misguided, but it wasn't broken.
But sometimes I do miss things, forget things, there are some mistakes I might not even see because I'm working on Windows. But I am trying to make things better here. So thank you for cleaning up after me, and I will try harder in the future.
That said, I stand by moving news, and I stand by my statement that we should be making breaking changes (with the caveat that those changes improve the code.) Now is the time to do that, when there are so few people actually using this codebase, as opposed to later when there might be dozens or hundreds, or never, simply because change is difficult to deal with. Chances are most of the entire universe of people using this fork in production are already in this thread. Moving news to a new folder shouldn't be a reason to create a hostile fork.
And that's why I agreed with i4cu's suggestion earler that a stable branch might be a good idea... which for some reason you interpreted as a personal attack,
"(...) and then suggesting that I should just
get off the master branch if I don't like your "experimentation"."
Rather than more charitably, that you should stay on the master branch and the unstable branch should be elsewhere, as I was actually conceding your point and agreeing with what I thought would be an equitable solution.
> You don't have to wipe up the mess. I didn't ask you to wipe up the mess, and I didn't expect you to.
I agree. That was my own expectation, and also I might have been wrong in expecting stability from a repo that's meant to be "extremely permissive in accepting patches."
> And you've explained at length already why that entire commit was misguided, but it wasn't broken.
That I don't agree with. I would consider a commit, that makes all links not work in the default config and prepends the site name to already absolute links, broken as well as misguided.
> But I am trying to make things better here. So thank you for cleaning up after me, and I will try harder in the future.
That's great. It's good to see work done on Arc. Looking forward to see where this goes.
> Moving news to a new folder shouldn't be a reason to create a hostile fork.
Let's just call it a fork, not a hostile fork, shall we? Also there's some other reasons listed in the readme of the fork.
