Switch to chrisant fork

[koppor]

The original development stopped. See e.g., mridgers/clink#555 (comment) or mridgers/clink#473

The maintained fork is https://github.com/chrisant996/clink. It would be nice if the chocolatey package switched to the maintained version.

[doggy8088]

@koppor Can you consider fork my project and publish a new one to the chocolatey gallery?

[koppor]

Meanwhile, someone else did that https://community.chocolatey.org/packages/clink-maintained

Package source: https://github.com/piotrek-szczygiel/clink-chocolatey

The situation also confuses other users (see http://disq.us/p/2hx9vbq). Maybe, it is possible to archive a package at chocolatey?

[chrisant996]

@doggy8088 I'm the current author of Clink, and I would like to take over publishing updates to https://community.chocolatey.org/packages/clink as part of the normal release process for Clink.

Would that be reasonable/possible?

[pauby]

@chrisant996 I've been directed here from a message sent to the Site Admins of Chocolatey. From the clink-maintained package page, could you click the Contact Site Admins link and mark it for my attention and reference this issue?

[chrisant996]

@pauby Done.

[doggy8088]

@chrisant996 Can you accept rebrand your build to another name?

It because Clink is exists for a long long time. Even the original author has been abandoned it's development, it is still many users are using it. Adding lots of new features might break some users behavior. I don't have time to do benchmark or comparison. I'm using PowerShell most of the time now.

[chrisant996]

@chrisant996 Can you accept rebrand your build to another name?

It because Clink is exists for a long long time. Even the original author has been abandoned it's development, it is still many users are using it. Adding lots of new features might break some users behavior. I don't have time to do benchmark or comparison. I'm using PowerShell most of the time now.

I have invested hundreds of hours on backwards compatibility. Martin himself made the incompatible changes, and I've restored backwards compatibility.

I keep seeing reports that the original doesn't even work anymore in some versions of Windows.

I can understand that fear, but no, that's not a feasible path forward.

[chrisant996]

@doggy8088 I interpreted "rebrand your build" as a request for me to change the name of Clink itself. If you instead mean "update a different chocolatey package", then someone already did that.

However, several users have pointed out that when people go to chocolatey and search for "clink", they assume they will get the current version. But instead they get a 6 year old version that doesn't work on some recent builds of Windows and is missing features that friends told them to expect. Also, people keep reporting bugs in v0.4.9 even though it's dead.

Could the existing "clink" package be labeled clearly that it is a dead / abandoned version, and could it include a link to the latest chocolatey package?

[koppor]

@doggy8088 It is very normal that software evolves. Especially, software being released 2016 cannot be expected to work properly on a current machine. Python is a prominent example where choco install pyhton installs Pyhton 3, where Python code of 2016 cannot run.

[chrisant996]

@doggy8088 you've used the package name "clink", but you aren't a maintainer or contributor in the Clink project itself. That has interfered with the ability for Martin or myself to publish Clink updates in chocolatey using the project's own name.

It would be very kind of you to update the https://community.chocolatey.org/packages/clink package so that the Title and Description fields clearly indicate it is an old version, and also include a link to the https://community.chocolatey.org/packages/clink-maintained package to help people find the package for the current version of Clink.

Please consider this request, and thank you for making the package originally, and for documenting the process to make it easier to produce the clink-maintained package.