Felipe Contreras wrote:
> The importance of users changes all the time. The 15 year old kid in
> Sao Paulo might not be important today, but he might be the single
> most important contributor ten years from now. Hell, he might even
> replace Junio as the maintainer.
Yes, they do. Did I say that they don't change?
> Where did I twist anything? You can see Linus talk himself:
Yes, I watched the talk when you posted the link last time. And yes,
I learnt something.
> Should we willingly and knowingly neglect some git user-base? No, why
> would you want them to fork? In a way, git's UI has been so bad, that
> some kind-of-forks have happened, that tells us something; the UI
> needs some love, fortunately none of those forks worked, which tells
> us something too; it's not too atrocious.
No, we should never neglect. I believe in including everyone. In
fact I take it to an extreme: on many instances, I have pointed out
what I want specifically, and asked for a configuration option if it's
not necessarily a sane default. Git is a toolkit, and should be
loaded with features that even a few users want.
> That's not to say we shouldn't fix the UI, we should, in a way that
> everyone's happy, which is hard, but we will do it, eventually.
On this, I think the way forward is complete-implicit'ness via
configuration variables. I recently wrote remote.pushdefault to
simply 'git push', and proposed 'git push +ref1 ref2 ref3' to
automatically push to the correct pushdefaults (but that proposal was
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html