Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 17:40 -0500, David Zeuthen wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 23:33 +0100, Olav Vitters wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 05:29:02PM -0500, David Zeuthen wrote:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > That isn't true. It is Bzr on server, with Git support. Nothing about
> > Hg, nothing about doing partly Git, partly Bzr.
> Then what happens when a new version of git with a new feature,
> incompatible with the git-serve kludge, is released? Then we're screwed,
> right? And who gets to pay? We do. We're stuck with an old version of
> git. Us. The very same people who very clearly said "git", not "bzr".
> Is it *really* so hard to understand that this whole git-serve is a
> terrible idea?

more importantly: is it *really* so hard to understand that if you want
a bzr storage for git you should probably propose it upstream instead of
writing something ad hoc for GNOME alone? if the idea has any merit[0]
then it should be pushed upstream -- even as an optional repository


[0] I'm reasonably sure it has some. not as the one proposed to avoid
pissing off somebody somewhere because we want to be inclusive -- no,
lemme rephrase that: we are *fucking afraid of committment*. seriously:
an abstraction over DVCS? what have we become? are we *ever* going make
*any* decision about *anything*? this is actually a larger issue with
the GNOME community: we are being afraid.

Emmanuele Bassi,

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