A Divendres, 29 de maig de 2009, Chani va escriure: > On May 28, 2009 18:46:05 Ian Monroe wrote: > > On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Albert Astals Cid <[email protected]> wrote: > > > A Divendres, 29 de maig de 2009, Thomas Zander va escriure: > > >> On Friday 29. May 2009 00.34.47 Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > >> > Well, everyone keeps saying "We are loosing developers because of > > >> > SVN", can't I extend that to "We are loosing developers because of > > >> > CURRENT_VCS"? > > >> > > >> only if CURENT_VCS equals svn. What is your point? > > > > > > My point is that i don't see why "We are loosing developers because of > > > SVN" is ok and "We are loosing developers because of git" is not ok now > > > or in 3 years > > > > You've entirely lost me here. > > I think albert thinks that if we're losing developers now because they > don't want to use svn, we may be just as likely to lose deveolpers in the > future because they don't like git. > I'm not sure where this "we're losing developers because of svn" argument > came from in the first place, though.
AFAIR Aaron has been saying that to me quite a lot, or at least that's what i understood :D > > > > and why we should not make the scripty system vcs agnostic now that we > > > have the 'chance'. > > > > Well decoupling parts of scripty from the VCS details is probably good > > design, just don't think it should be a feature goal. > > > > > P.S: I know git is the r00lz and will never be anything better than it > > > but there are some of us (stubborn in thiago notation) that still don't > > > like it > > > > That's a pretty horrible reason to support multiple VCS's for the same > > project though. > > supporting multiple vcs's because not everyone wants the same vcs... well, > on the surface it doesn't sound so bad - but it really wouldn't work out in > practice. > > people who are new to KDE would have a bunch of different VCS's to learn > about, and people who contribute to multiple areas in KDE would have a > bunch of vcs's to worry about too, and I think it would end up being quite > annoying. and then there's the kde-review process and other code movement - > it's a lot harder to move code+history between two different VCSs. > > switching to git is going to depend on a lot of communication and people in > the community working together - there are already people worried using a > distributed vcs might fragment the community. I think we can overcome that > so long as it's handled well, but people wandering to entirely different > VCS's might be a bit much. > > although someday, years from now, I bet something way better than git will > come along, and it'll be convenient to have less switching work to be done > then. > > in any case, I'm probably going to take the lazy route and just put git > support in where it's needed. if someone wants to rewrite scripty entirely > and make it all modular and shiny, go right ahead, but I don't have *that* > much time on my hands. Fair enough Albert _______________________________________________ Kde-scm-interest mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-scm-interest
