Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 23:20 +0100, Ali Sabil wrote:
>         First, it only makes it much harder for users to grasp; we're
>         going to
>         end up with some projects have l.g.o pages / README files /
>         mailing list
>         messages saying "use bzr to check out this branch" and others
>         saying the
>         same for git. That's *not* desirable; it makes it so much
>         harder for new
>         contributors.
> That's not what John's proposal is about ! John wants to use the bzr
> format as a repository format, and add a git-serve plugin to bzr to be
> able to "talk" to the git clients. In other words, you will be able to
> access the same data using either bzr, git or hg.

Uh, but that's exactly how I understood the proposal and I believe that
the points I made (that you didn't respond to) still stands: That it's
crazy to officially want to support git, bzr and hg *at* the same time
*from* the same repo. It's just asking for trouble.

>         Finally: We're talking about people's data here. The first
>         rule of
>         holding peoples data is that you don't screw around with it
>         "just
>         because". Data integrity matters. Keeping things simple and
>         staying with
>         a *single* kind of hammer (instead of a weird homegrown mutant
>         hammer)
>         helps here. Otherwise we end up with data loss. Frankly, I'm
>         concerned
>         that some people are even considering using such homegrown
>         kludges for
>         holding our GNOME source code.
> Comparing the size of the Bazaar unit tests with those of Git, I would
> certainly choose Bazaar for storing my data.

I wasn't commenting on bzr vs git storage format; I'm sure either is
fine. I was commenting on the fact that someone proposes to inject
something like git-serve in the middle; that's what I think is a kludge.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]