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 <[email protected]> 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' / contest. > >> <http://www.gnome.org/~shaunm/survey/first-picks-permutations.png> 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. > http://blogs.gnome.org/johncarr/2008/12/11/dvcs-for-gnome/#comment-172 > > 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.) -- Regards, Olav _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
