----- Original Message ----- > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 08:24:24PM +0000, Tom Albers wrote: > > I'm a team player, that means I trust on others to educate me, > > correct me > > > you may have noticed that all the job ads looking for team players > also > emphasize independence and self-motivation. i.e., the ability to > complete day-to-day tasks on your own.
My day-to-day task was to be helpful in this thread. And I could complete that just fine without knowing what a ref is. The only part I was not sure of I clearly indicated that someone else needs to look at it. > > that also means I don't have to learn git. > > > hearing that from a sysadmin makes me *really* scared. The sysadmin team has knowledge enough about git and I'm happy to leave the things I don't know to them. > but then, kde always had the culture of fixing mistakes instead of > avoiding them (as in, stuff that gets committed). Yes, this is different than a commercial company indeed. > we have about 500 > backups (clones) of the repositories and nobody except me seems to > care > whether the scm history is useful anyway. >From close by I've seen several git repo's being declined by fellow sysadmins >and people from kde-git, because the history was incomplete or stuff was >missing. I've seen several discussions about what would be the 'right' history >and a lot of people cared. I think you are mistaken here. > so whatever - let's have > fun! > had your daily pull --rebase screwup already? no? way to go ... Let me be clear: I'm very careful about the stuff I do with git and I understood the discussion about the --rebase problem just fine, after this list made clear I had to watch out for that. I actually did research and talked to people to understand it, because the discussion was a bit confusing to me. Best, -- Tom Albers KDE Sysadmin
