> I thought your response was fine :-) I see what you are saying now - basically that was part of Capistrano already, so moving it to its own gem is a very good idea.

Thanks for the vindication, if it wasn't an external gem, I'd probably have to re-release Capistrano, exactly. This is less invasive.

> Wouldn't the new gem rely on Capistrano and not the other way around?

Typically yes, but I have a vested interest in promoting Harrow so that I can afford to keep working on open source, it's slightly cheeky but apparently I earned some good will in all the time I've worked on Capistrano as we've had genuinely net-positive responses to the suggestion.

> Regardless, the one lodging the issue probably should have stepped away from the keyboard before lodging the issue.

I'm guilty of writing much worse, a little empathy goes a long way on the internet. I just apply Hanlon's razor anytime I see something that makes my blood boil, apart from making me feel a little bit less bad about myself, it's a quality of life improvement.

Thanks for the constructive discourse.