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 format. ciao, Emmanuele. [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, W: http://www.emmanuelebassi.net B: http://log.emmanuelebassi.net _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
