On 2017-11-04 18:25, Graham Leggett wrote: > If you aren’t willing to do the four things you’ve mentioned above, > your code has pretty much disqualified itself from consideration, and > what you want is largely irrelevant.
This attitude is exactly the reason why Apache is losing marketshare against Nginx. > We have a development and release process that has been in place and > served us well for almost two decades, and most of the popular > release processes that are in vogue today are just more complex > versions of our existing workflow. I would recommend learning how our > release process works before suggesting it be replaced (with a > workflow not unlike our existing). Seriously? You must be joking. Also, I'm not the one who suggested to replace it, but pointed out a few arguments for git, which was suggested by Stefan Priebe. Or the be exact, he asked "why not git?". > Every project I’ve been involved in, from Apache C projects to Maven > based Java projects, to other open source projects like freeradius > and gstreamer, has its own set of conventions and ways of doing > things. In each case I tailor my contribution to fit the existing > project, I don’t expect the project to rearrange itself around me. Yes, most projects have their own conventions and yes, I tailor my contributions towards their processes as well. However, there are projects, which processes are too extrem and tedious and I don't contribute because of them. I did not suggest to replace your precious work flow, I only showed up why people _might_ be put off by it. -- regards Helmut K. C. Tessarek KeyID 0xF7832007C11F128D Key fingerprint = 28A3 1666 4FE8 D72C CFD5 8B23 F783 2007 C11F 128D /* Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer for chaos and madness await thee at its end. */
