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
> 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.