otp in passmenu

[Oliver Ford]

> I suspect Gildásio used "demand" but meant "request". Nothing else in
> their email implies that they're 'demanding' anything from Jason, the
> maintainer, or anyone else.

Hear hear. I didn't think I was reading too charitably in assuming a translation quirk. I know I do a far worse job of trying to speak any non-English languages than that.

> I think it might be reasonable for people to seriously consider
> forking Pass. [etc.]

Those desiring a version of pass that's more, how should I put it, 'continually iterated on', might consider 'gopass':

https://github.com/gopasspw/gopass

It's a re-write rather than an actual fork, but it aims for pass-compatibility and is already (~4k 'stars') popular. I've no affiliation (perhaps some trivial patch), and perhaps there's a good reason (?) to prefer a true fork/a bash script (ok it's truer to the front and centre Unix philosophy adhered to by pass I suppose) in which case this isn't that.

If the most important thing to you in 'pass' is a new feature though, I think it's considerably more likely 'over there'.

-- 
  Oliver Ford
  dev.git.password-store at ojford.com

On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, at 19:59, Kenny Evitt wrote:
> I suspect Gildásio used "demand" but meant "request". Nothing else in
> their email implies that they're 'demanding' anything from Jason, the
> maintainer, or anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> I think it might be reasonable for people to seriously consider
> forking Pass. No one's obligated to do anything. But no one's
> obligated to refrain from changing Pass, or refrain from sharing those
> changes either.
> 
> (I'd strongly suggest picking a new distinctive name, or at least a
> distinctive variation on "pass" or "password store".)
> 
> I suspect Jason considers Pass mostly complete as-is. And that's fine!
> I mostly agree with that myself. My own previous patches were never
> accepted, and Jason had good reasons for doing so.
> 
> But it's frustrating not having patches accepted, or running one's own
> custom private 'fork'. If people want to make changes useful to them,
> and share those changes with others, then a fork could make sense.
> (It's a lot of work tho!)
> 
> 
> On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 10:07 AM Jonas Kalderstam
> <jonas at cowboyprogrammer.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 9 April 2021 04:09:03 CEST, "Gildásio Júnior" <gildasiojunior at riseup.net> wrote:
> > >I have the same demand as Alessandro Accardo mentioned in Sep 2018 [0].
> > >He submited a patch, receive a feedback, updated it and I couldn't see
> > >any other new feedback.
> >
> > I wouldn't expect much in terms of a reply when you have "demands" on people working for free in their spare time..
> >
> > >PS: I didn't have experience contribut with git patches by email. So
> > >please let me know if I did something wrong and how can get the right
> > >path.
> >
> > See https://git-send-email.io for an excellent guide to git and email.
> >
> >
> 
>