Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 09:40:33AM -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Olav Vitters <olav bkor dhs org> wrote:
> > That isn't a contest. It is a survey.
> Please don't read more in to my email than I intended. There's no need
> to get defensive.

It is not defensive. I don't like changing a survey into 'winning' /

> >> <> It
> >> seems to me that a lot of brain power, sysadmin time, and general
> >
> > I am a sysadmin and disagree with your notion that sysadmin time is
> > somehow saved. I'd rather asses such things myself. Further, sysadmin
> > time is not so important.
> Thank you for voicing your opinion.
> >> just all move on?
> >
> > Further, your explanation is incomplete. As you said, the graph is about
> > people knowing two DVCS systems. I wouldn't say I knew 2. Those 6 are
> > incomplete.
> I highlighted this statistical analysis because those 6 contain the
> subset of  4 vocal users demanding that we /also/ support bzr.

Yes, but then said 6. That is incomplete.

> > Now before you reply: we have a clear need for git to work (ranked 1st
> > 50% of the time, etc). But if you say "move on", how do you think a
> > switch is made? Magic?
> Please don't be patronizing. I'm not an idiot.

You talk about moving on. I don't see anyone who'd do something like
that. My reply is that nothing will happen unless someone does
something real (not just another thread).

> > Anyway, I'd rather add John Carr to the sysadmin team. I plan to make a
> > proposal to switch GNOME to a DVCS where Git works using Johns
> > suggestion. Then other sysadmins[1] can suggest whatever proposal they
> > want. These proposals can be investigated on merit and then a one can be
> > chosen (chosen as in: "go ahead and try if this would work", not "go
> > ahead blindly"; everything must be tested before a cutover).
> John's idea is a good one but it patently loses on technical merit. As
> stated by John here, git will only be support in a degraded,
> bastardized form because he chose bzr as the repository format:

I read his comment not in the same way. Bzr supports more, Git less.
However, I will less John answer... as that will be more concrete.

> Are we really going to go back to the days of CVS where file moves
> aren't supported?

Git doesn't do renames; instead applies heuristics. So this is applied.

> It strikes me that this very vocal minority--John and Robert Carr,
> Karl Lattimer and Rob Taylor (whom are four of the six people I
> mentioned above)--are potentially delaying even longer what we've
> wanted for more than two years, now. It is from these same people that
> came the suggestion that git users were a rapid, vocal minority. Why
> are we letting them derail this process?

Again, you're limiting it to 6 people. It is not about the six. This is
why I responded before. Instead, you use that number again. Even adding
people's names, I don't find this useful.

I am not going to talk about 'derailing'.. too emotional word.

> Moving will not be easy, obviously. But doing it John's way will be,
> in my technical analysis, an order of magnitude more painful.

His way is a solution I expect to be implemented in 2009. To be honest,
I really wonder if something else would happen that I'd qualify as a
good switch.

Yes, might be more difficult to implement. This is what can be
discussed. (Along with other migration proposals.)


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