Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

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?


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