Re: to git or not to git

[Timothy Pearson]

On 09/06/2018 02:46 PM, David Boddie wrote:
> On Thursday 6. September 2018 12.21.17 Timothy Pearson wrote:
> 
>> On the topic of history rewrite, I'd argue that allowing it on a private
>> (read: development) repository provides better commits and less chance
>> of losing work.  It allows the developer to incrementally commit small,
>> incomplete, possibly even wrong changes, then decide how they should be
>> packaged and layered before attempting a merge.  Without this
>> capability, our programmers would tend to keep a massive chunk of
>> unstaged changes locally, then submit the entire mess for review once it
>> was working properly.  History rewrite allows the developer to verify a
>> multi-week, multi-layer, self-dependent modification and still be able
>> to split it apart into logical, incremental chunks with relative ease.
> 
> But are they sharing the changes they commit before rewriting the history
> and sharing it with colleagues?

No, and I should have pointed that out.  When you start sharing, all
bets are off and history should not be rewritten, however at the same
time you're not likely to be sharing broken / nonfunctional code that's
still in the middle of a rewrite.  At the very least, it would be
expected that you clean up your own mess a bit before trying to engage a
colleague for assistance, to avoid wasting time all around, and even
then it would be in some kind of WIP branch that would be deleted later on.

>> I can't imagine working without this feature.  The lack of that feature
>> on other source control systems might explain the relatively poor commit
>> quality we have observed on those systems (or from people trained on
>> those systems) over time -- their commits to be very large, doing way
>> too much and touching too many files.  Needles to say this causes a
>> massive headache if/when the patch introduces a regression.
> 
> I think it depends more on the workflow more than the features of the
> revision control system. Of course, those people used to non-distributed
> systems may be in the habit of batching their commits for several unrelated
> issues because they are used to a centralised model where committing a change
> involves sharing it with everyone else.
> 
> I think you could do something similar to git with Mercurial but it wouldn't
> be exactly the same.

As long as the general class of functionality is present, that's fine.
No ability to stage and rework a commit stack though is going to push
people more toward the monolithic / batched commit mode from what I've seen.

> David
> ___
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
> https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
> 
> This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
> participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
> https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct


-- 
Timothy Pearson
Raptor Engineering
+1 (415) 727-8645 (direct line)
+1 (512) 690-0200 (switchboard)
https://www.raptorengineering.com
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct

Re: to git or not to git

[Timothy Pearson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On 09/06/2018 06:42 AM, David Boddie wrote:
> On Wed Sep 5 19:44:20 UTC 2018, Alessandro Rubini wrote:
> 
>> Today I read some (most?) documents on the project's site, and I see
>> that it's very similar, but on the flip side it looks like interactive
>> rebases are not as easy as they are with git, and I really use them a
>> lot (I write several features and test them all together, so I often
>> squash my fixes in the original commit before pushing).
> 
> Yes, I think there's a compromise between flexibility and simplicity.
> Mercurial seems to be focused more on simplicity and ease of use, but that
> might make certain tasks difficult to achieve depending on your workflow.
> 
>> Also, I don't like much the data model (which is why, I think, changing
>> the whole history is not as easy as with git).
> 
> I think that is regarded as a feature in Mercurial. History rewriting may
> be a useful feature in git but it could have limited use if your repositories
> are already public. When Mercurial and git were evaluated at a former
> employer the ability to rewrite the history was counted as an advantage for
> git despite the problem that it would have been very difficult to justify
> using it on the company's public repositories.
> 
> Still, it's useful to have the option to do it, especially for private repos.
> 
>> Thank you none the less, it was interesting reading.
> 
> You're welcome.
> 
> David

On the topic of history rewrite, I'd argue that allowing it on a private
(read: development) repository provides better commits and less chance
of losing work.  It allows the developer to incrementally commit small,
incomplete, possibly even wrong changes, then decide how they should be
packaged and layered before attempting a merge.  Without this
capability, our programmers would tend to keep a massive chunk of
unstaged changes locally, then submit the entire mess for review once it
was working properly.  History rewrite allows the developer to verify a
multi-week, multi-layer, self-dependent modification and still be able
to split it apart into logical, incremental chunks with relative ease.

I can't imagine working without this feature.  The lack of that feature
on other source control systems might explain the relatively poor commit
quality we have observed on those systems (or from people trained on
those systems) over time -- their commits to be very large, doing way
too much and touching too many files.  Needles to say this causes a
massive headache if/when the patch introduces a regression.

- -- 
Timothy Pearson
Raptor Engineering
+1 (415) 727-8645 (direct line)
+1 (512) 690-0200 (switchboard)
https://www.raptorengineering.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJbkWIJAAoJEK+E3vEXDOFbkyYH/2f5zIeAB5Quiqqjmy8sR4Le
whtegBYPW0sYZikbN9xpC+hkzcA8RCSPMpUBspuOkDwlFgNrOvDmbHsz5gkAKNIW
AuXoe5fctaV/88iVBOsXt0OtEP+N6/7F7BsvIvYvRbKk3eQK4uMbjwfyYWYX4hV8
vTQh1hVcUhAJwW2WEzOsKid0tN0/x05+GHADriZa8ksxoWmOg8XOxa3bzuhLyCM8
BtZC5aAxomI4pzPOXra2LkGUYcVHQQTqVtE4h/DleidqjX1LXEr7kgQwVpETtO3h
/Yz/z1IjKlpAr1Bl8u5fioP+D0P+8ekRTlap/7EPTksHyjAlpLB51hPh4PN/odE=
=5khl
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct

Re: to git or not to git

[David Boddie]

On Thursday 6. September 2018 12.21.17 Timothy Pearson wrote:

> On the topic of history rewrite, I'd argue that allowing it on a private
> (read: development) repository provides better commits and less chance
> of losing work.  It allows the developer to incrementally commit small,
> incomplete, possibly even wrong changes, then decide how they should be
> packaged and layered before attempting a merge.  Without this
> capability, our programmers would tend to keep a massive chunk of
> unstaged changes locally, then submit the entire mess for review once it
> was working properly.  History rewrite allows the developer to verify a
> multi-week, multi-layer, self-dependent modification and still be able
> to split it apart into logical, incremental chunks with relative ease.

But are they sharing the changes they commit before rewriting the history
and sharing it with colleagues?

> I can't imagine working without this feature.  The lack of that feature
> on other source control systems might explain the relatively poor commit
> quality we have observed on those systems (or from people trained on
> those systems) over time -- their commits to be very large, doing way
> too much and touching too many files.  Needles to say this causes a
> massive headache if/when the patch introduces a regression.

I think it depends more on the workflow more than the features of the
revision control system. Of course, those people used to non-distributed
systems may be in the habit of batching their commits for several unrelated
issues because they are used to a centralised model where committing a change
involves sharing it with everyone else.

I think you could do something similar to git with Mercurial but it wouldn't
be exactly the same.

David
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct

Re: Silent majority (was: supporting our fellowship representative)

[lukerogers]

I didn't start this thread to "win", I started this thread to say I will quit 
if things don't change.  That is my right.  Lot's of groups doing great things 
who deserve my money.

After watching the replies, now my decision is clear.


--
Securely sent with Tutanota. Claim your encrypted mailbox today!
https://tutanota.com 

6. Sep 2018 05:25 by b...@gnu.org :


> Hi all,
>
> I don't know nothing about what's been talked about in this thread.
>
> This is just a reminder that there are probably many subscribers like
> me who don't have a clue of what is at stake here.
>
> Perhaps you should gather in a field, organize a tournament and come
> back when someone wins -- or have a good discussion somewhere IRL?
>
> In any case, please keep in mind that some readers may be completely
> lost and partially fed up with the spectacle.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -- 
>  Bastien
> ___
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion@lists.fsfe.org 
> https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion 
> 
>
> This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
> participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
> https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct ___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct

Re: to git or not to git

[David Boddie]

On Wed Sep 5 19:44:20 UTC 2018, Alessandro Rubini wrote:

> Today I read some (most?) documents on the project's site, and I see
> that it's very similar, but on the flip side it looks like interactive
> rebases are not as easy as they are with git, and I really use them a
> lot (I write several features and test them all together, so I often
> squash my fixes in the original commit before pushing).

Yes, I think there's a compromise between flexibility and simplicity.
Mercurial seems to be focused more on simplicity and ease of use, but that
might make certain tasks difficult to achieve depending on your workflow.

> Also, I don't like much the data model (which is why, I think, changing
> the whole history is not as easy as with git).

I think that is regarded as a feature in Mercurial. History rewriting may
be a useful feature in git but it could have limited use if your repositories
are already public. When Mercurial and git were evaluated at a former
employer the ability to rewrite the history was counted as an advantage for
git despite the problem that it would have been very difficult to justify
using it on the company's public repositories.

Still, it's useful to have the option to do it, especially for private repos.

> Thank you none the less, it was interesting reading.

You're welcome.

David
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct

temporary moderation of this list

[Florian Snow]

Dear list subscribers,

Many mails in the recent discussions do not add new arguments, but
rather fuel a heated meta-discussion about who said what with which
intention. Over the course of just one day, the CARE team was alerted to
several issues and more and more people, both on the list and in private
messages, raised their voices asking to avoid what they see as a debate
that is unproductive and unsuited for a mailing list.

To hopefully help calm down the situation, the list moderation team
decided to set this list on moderation from now until next Tuesday.

Every message that is on-topic, written in an appropriate tone, and in
line with our CoC will be delivered to the list, no matter the opinion.

We apologize for any potential delays in message delivery due to
moderation. Thank you very much and looking forward to many fruitful and
friendly discussions.

Happy hacking!
Florian for the moderators
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct

FSFE infrastructure is no place for personal attacks

[Erik Albers]

Dear lukerogers,

your message is offensive and a personal attack to another list-subscriber. In
my function I shall protect other community members and list-subscribers in a
way that they can feel at ease without fearing any form of attack, reprisal or
harassment. I am not going into more detail here, you already received a
private message with more information about the further procedure. I only post
this message to the list, so people know that we care.

Best regards,
   Erik

-- 
No one shall ever be forced to use non-free software
Erik Albers | Communication & Community Coordinator | FSFE
OpenPGP Key-ID: 0x8639DC81 on keys.gnupg.net
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct

Urgent Call to Action: Save Free Software this September

[Alexander Sander]

Hello all,

In the context of our https://savecodeshare.eu/ campaign we just
published this call to action:
https://fsfe.org/news/2018/news-20180905-02.html - We would be happy if
you spread this message to your networks:


Call to Action: Save Free Software this September

Free Software is at risk! On the 12th of September the EU is getting
ready to vote on a "Copyright Reform" package, which undermines the
foundations upon which Free Software is built. The proposed Article 13
of the EU Copyright Directive targets every online service that allows
its users to upload and share content with each other, including code
hosting platforms.

Let's call upon European policy makers to delete the threat posed
against Free Software in the Copyright Directive.

The widespread reuse of Free Software is a foundation of the Internet,
as code can be used, studied, shared and improved by each user. It would
be wrong to take this freedom for granted. Since most of the internet
medium is compiled and reused as Free Software, the ruling would
dismantle the media ecosystem.

We are getting ready for the EU's vote on a "Copyright Reform" package,
in order to remove a section of its terms and conditions that looks to
hamper Free Software development and code-sharing. Every Internet user,
who shares information, media, and code with the public, has been
targeted in the proposed directive. The idea in Article 13 is that Free
Software is a cause for copyright violations and that, therefore,
upload-filters should be created by internet platforms.

There are even a variety of types of governmental organisations,
facilitated and powered by Free Software. In fact, on just one of the
major code hosting platforms, over 128 government organisations from
over 17 European governments have, in total, licensed 4594 instances of
Free Software on code-hosting platforms, at the time of writing. [1]
They are, as follows: Open Government initiatives, Cutural heritage
directories, Ecology research departments and agencies, Digitalisation
projects, Emergency Services, Information Systems, Election Services,
Transport networks, Education institutions, Energy services, Mapping and
Geographical research institutes, Statistical bureaus, Business
departments, Law courts, Security groups, and Departments of Finance.

So, for those inside the EU, now's the time to do your bit and to
communicate with an MEP, who represents your country, in order to notify
your support for Free Software in the face of Article 13 in the
Copyright Directive.

Do that at https://saveyourinternet.eu, where there are tips on who and
how to address and send your message. When you're ready, you can even
use a tool [2], created by EDRi and Open Media, to directly call and
e-mail your MEP.

Let's call upon European policy makers to delete the threat posed
against Free and Open Source Software in the Copyright Directive.

Best regards,
Alex


[1] https://government.github.com/community/
[2] https://www.liberties.eu/en/news/copyright-campaign-call-your-mep/14733


-- 
Alexander Sander - EU Public Policy Programme Manager
Free Software Foundation Europe
Schönhauser Allee 6/7, 10119 Berlin, Germany | t +49-151 923 472 12
Registered at Amtsgericht Hamburg, VR 17030  |   (fsfe.org/join)
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct

Re: Silent majority (was: supporting our fellowship representative)

[Stefan Uygur]

Reinhard,
You are reading and agreeing only now on this statement while l asked the
exact same in the very beginning of the flame?

Pls do your homework before playing mastermind here.

I am speechless really.

On Thu, 6 Sep 2018, 09:08 Reinhard Müller,  wrote:

> Dear [formerly] silent majority,
>
> Thank you so much for speaking up now and with very clear words. We hear
> you.
>
> Now everybody let's get back to constructive work for Free Software.
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Reinhard Müller * Financial Team
> Free Software Foundation Europe
>
> ___
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
> https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>
> This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
> participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
> https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
>
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct

Re: Daniel on discussion@ (Re: what makes a good president and chairperson?)

[Stefan Uygur]

Andreas,
You really are asking me this question while the reason of my
disappointment is clearly quoted?
Seriously?

But l will try to help you by listing just a couple of reasons:

1. He accused my email address to be associated somehow with Daniel and he
even deared to do a research on my email.
2. He is continuously talking on behalf of Matthias Kirchner since the
beginning while several people including myself calling the latter into
discussion.
3. He is an ass kisser and l detest such people

If Matthias Kirchner has his personal issues, incapable of performing his
duties and therefore not able to represent this organisation why can't he
just quit?

Even the fact that you ask me why l am disappointed upsets me and makes me
clearly think you are not following the flow of tue threads or maybe you
simply ignore. Because, if you didn't realize l removed everything and
quoted only 2 paragraphs to make sure where I've been triggered.

Now, really, l am tired of explaining myself to fsfe internal audience for
things that are obvious.

I am and remain at the opinion that all the stuff has to go and fsfe need
complete change for the sake of survival of fsfe itself.

Else, it can continue and remain a tiny meaningless association but in that
case pls rename it fsfg hence it can represent Germany only not the entire
Europe.

The way things are right now fsfe does not deserve to be representing free
software community or better is not representing.

I hope this clears things in better, pls do not debate further or ask morr
explanations as you can go back amd read all the history of mails in this
ml and try to understand in better my reasoning.

Ciao and best of luck.

On Thu, 6 Sep 2018, 06:13 Andreas Nilsson,  wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Hi Stefan.
>
> I couldn't help but notice the nature of how disappointed you seem to
> be at Bernhard. I don't know what Bernhard has done in the past days
> that this debate might have taken place but I do know that stating a
> view on a doing that hasn't been done is wrongful.
>
> What has Bernhard done to be put to shame and go away in your thinking?
>
> Kind regards,
> Andreas
>
> On Wed, 2018-09-05 at 18:03 +0100, Stefan Uygur wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 7:42 AM Bernhard E. Reiter 
> > wrote:
> > > please read the exchange again and look at the quotes,
> > > I was asking what ostend...@gmail.com meant by quoting from an HTML
> > > mail by
> > > matthias.ha...@zoho.eu.
> > >
> > > BTW: as both email addresses have no direct hits on an internet
> > > search engine,
> > > they strongly support your points and they have similiarities in
> > > writing
> > > styles, I'm just asking you directly: What is your connection to
> > > these email
> > > addresses?
> > >
> >
> > I cannot believe that an organization like FSFE has a little minded
> > people like you Bernhard. Yes I am talking to you with the specific
> > tone and directly because you are the disgrace of Free Software and
> > the community. Otherwise you will have not written such a shameful
> > insinuation. If you have had just googled, for the sake of your
> > intelligence, my name, you will have seen that that email is
> > associated to my name.
> >
> > The fact that I do not write often in this list does not give me less
> > entitlements and gives you more etc. I am the supporter of Free
> > Software and the community and I promote both equally for more than 2
> > decades.
> >
> > I pay the community and the organization for which you work for and
> > you are paid for, you and your president Matthias. You don't pay me
> > but I do pay you.
> >
> > Therefore I believe I have more entitlements then you do and if I
> > demand explanation and the intervention of the legal representative,
> > which is the president, that person either have to show up or it has
> > to go away.Because I am not in the mood to allow such person to
> > represent free software and the community.
> >
> > I am sick of receiving your emails and you speaking on behalf of
> > Matthias. In the community like Free Software there is no space for
> > ass kissers.
> >
> > Shame on you.
> >
> > Go home all of you.
> >
> > ___
> > Discussion mailing list
> > Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
> > https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
> >
> > This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
> > participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
> > https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
>
> iHUEAREKAB0WIQRzLcEzYZ4mgAzFhvO5vYi5hUgLzgUCW5C3awAKCRC5vYi5hUgL
> zubQAQCpIXCNrzPxPpkeDpG34IKmyNeBIG+Jh+PH6iRSgm+qcQEA0uobh6Imk7lI
> tJd6EZUOAa2xV0CIJqkqbT9ww+0w7z4=
> =1Fg0
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>
>
>
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All

Conference Bits

[Bernhard E. Reiter]

Hello,
there is a conference https://bits-und-baeume.org/en
that aims to bring together several approaches for sustainability
in the physical and digital world.

I've learned about it only a few days before the closing of the CfP
and submitted three proposals:

a) Talk about "How to improve the world on many topic with limited personal 
resources"

which is a rough translation of
  Mit wenig Einsatz, bei vielen Themen die Welt verbessern
  -- Mit System handeln und andere überzeugen

b) an 8 minute provocative stand-up about
   "It is in your best interest to pay for software, services and newspapers!"

rough translation of
  Meine These ist: Es ist in Deinem Interesse für Software, Dienste, 
  Newsticker und Zeitungen zu bezahlen!

c) a workshop about
  We set up Email-Cryptography
  -- End-to-End with OpenPGP got easier

a) and b) are being planned in German, though I could do English as well.
As you are English readers, do some of you plan of going there?
If more people are interested I could do a translation of my abstracts for a) 
and b) and send it here.

I don't know how the organizers react towards wishes from the audience,
what I've heard is that they would like more Free Software people to bring in 
their experiences. Thought I'd let you know.


Best Regards,
Bernhard

-- 
FSFE -- Founding Member Support our work for Free Software: 
blogs.fsfe.org/bernhard https://fsfe.org/donate | contribute


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct

Re: Silent majority

[Erik Albers]

Hi all,

On 06.09.2018 07:25, b...@gnu.org wrote:
> I don't know nothing about what's been talked about in this thread.
> 
> This is just a reminder that there are probably many subscribers like
> me who don't have a clue of what is at stake here.
> 
> Perhaps you should gather in a field, organize a tournament and come
> back when someone wins -- or have a good discussion somewhere IRL?
> 
> In any case, please keep in mind that some readers may be completely
> lost and partially fed up with the spectacle.

this is my favourite post to the discussion in the last days. Thank you so
much for stepping up from the silence.

Please let us all try to calm down for a while and then let us discuss Free
Software topics again.

Thank you,
   Erik

-- 
No one shall ever be forced to use non-free software
Erik Albers | Communication & Community Coordinator | FSFE
OpenPGP Key-ID: 0x8639DC81 on keys.gnupg.net
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct

Re: selective censorship (aka some words from your list-admins)

[Erik Albers]

Dear Daniel,

On 05.09.2018 20:25, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> One of those posts is so offensive and inaccurate that I would kindly
> request that if you are willing to censor new subscribers, 

Moderation is unlike censorship. Every message that is written in an
appropriate tone will be delivered to the list, no matter the opinion.

> you also
> censor that GA member by removing his post from the public archive.

removing posts from the archive is not possible (for me).


> I would also request that you escalate that particular post to the CARE
> team.

When anyone feels attacked on a FSFE list in a way that is against our Code of
Conduct, please contact the CARE team about it directly yourself. You do not
need me or anyone else for this process in between. You can find contact
information of the team and its individuals here:

https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct#CARE

Best regards,
   Erik

-- 
No one shall ever be forced to use non-free software
Erik Albers | Communication & Community Coordinator | FSFE
OpenPGP Key-ID: 0x8639DC81 on keys.gnupg.net
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct

pros for hg instead of git (was: to git or not to git)

[Bernhard E. Reiter]

Am Mittwoch 05 September 2018 21:44:20 schrieb Alessandro Rubini:
> Having two options instead of one is always good.

Yes, this is why my post was about the effect chains if we use and support one 
tool or several ones. Because in a lot of situations others are already 
completely booked on one tool, I'm using all opportunites to use the other, 
because they come less often. Just like I am always trying to use
https://iridiumbrowser.de/ instead of Chrome and Edge if I can.
And a GNU system instead of Windows. LineageOS-microg over Vendor 
Android/Linux. And so on. It is not a major hassle for me, I'll just keep an 
eye open for more Free Software opportunities.

But back to Mercurial SCM (aka hg from https://www.mercurial-scm.org/):

> Today I read some (most?) documents on the project's site, and I see
> that it's very similar, 

Thanks for giving hg a look. In my experience it is a sound option
and comes with comparable power, if compared to git.

> but on the flip side it looks like interactive 
> rebases are not as easy as they are with git, and I really use them a
> lot (I write several features and test them all together, so I often
> squash my fixes in the original commit before pushing).

With due respect: Here you can see how your style of working was shaped by the 
tool. In my company (where we use hg and git) we'd already lost code because 
an interactive rebase can lead to data loss, thus breaking a mental concept
that some have of an SCM to be able to reconstruct each configuration once it 
has been checked in. Still I believe interactive rebased can be useful,
and you've probably found the extensions that allow it for hg,

e.g. see the dicussion at 
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1725607/can-i-squash-commits-in-mercurial#1725638

> Also, I don't like much the data model (which is why, I think, changing
> the whole history is not as easy as with git).
>
> Thank you none the less, it was interesting reading.

Thanks for considering hg, a technically diverse "ecosystem" is much more 
resilient against all sorts of "problems". :)

Best Regards,
Bernhard
-- 
FSFE -- Founding Member Support our work for Free Software: 
blogs.fsfe.org/bernhard https://fsfe.org/donate | contribute


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct

Re: Silent majority (was: supporting our fellowship representative)

[Reinhard Müller]

Dear [formerly] silent majority,

Thank you so much for speaking up now and with very clear words. We hear
you.

Now everybody let's get back to constructive work for Free Software.

Thanks,
-- 
Reinhard Müller * Financial Team
Free Software Foundation Europe



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct

Re: Silent majority (was: supporting our fellowship representative)

[Ben Oliver]

On 18-09-06 07:25:12, b...@gnu.org wrote:

In any case, please keep in mind that some readers may be completely
lost and partially fed up with the spectacle.

Thanks,

-- Bastien


Could not agree more.

I became a supporter back in June, I joined the list at roughly the same 
time. Since then, all I have seen are hundreds and hundreds of emails 
arguing about internal politics.


It's exhausting, and makes it seem that the fsfe does little more than 
talk about itself.


I'm sorry that you are having an internal conflict, but it really seems 
like you need to sort it in person - email appears to be failing you in 
this case.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct

Re: Daniel on discussion@ (Re: what makes a good president and chairperson?)

[Bernhard E. Reiter]

Hi Stefan,

Am Mittwoch 05 September 2018 19:03:46 schrieb Stefan Uygur:
> If you have had just googled, for the sake of your intelligence, 
> my name, you will have seen that that email is associated to my name.

when you wrote (on the 31th) that you
| know and have been part of communities like FSFE for the last 20+ yrs and
| represented some of them as president.

I got interested in your work and put your email address in a privacy aware 
search engine like 
  https://duckduckgo.com/
  https://www.startpage.com
  https://www.qwant.com/
(no hits which have the email address itself)

> I am the supporter of Free Software
> and the community and I promote both equally for more than 2 decades.

It is for respect that I want to understand where my communication partner is 
coming from and it helps to make communication easier.

An open question is also an opportunity to clarify, as other may get the same 
ideas, but do not try to ask it openly.

> I do pay you.

So far I have not been paid by FSFE, I held honoary positions, am a volunteer 
and a donor with my company. You'll find a link to my homepage from the blog 
in my footer.

Regards,
Bernhard

-- 
FSFE -- Founding Member Support our work for Free Software: 
blogs.fsfe.org/bernhard https://fsfe.org/donate | contribute


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct

Re: Silent majority

[Carsten Agger]

On 09/06/2018 08:51 AM, Timothy Pearson wrote:

On 09/06/2018 12:25 AM, b...@gnu.org wrote:

[...]

Perhaps you should gather in a field, organize a tournament and come
back when someone wins -- or have a good discussion somewhere IRL?

[...]
All jesting aside, I'm also tired of seeing this flood of internal
politics and bickering.


+1.

I no longer think this list is an appropriate venue for this ongoing 
discussion. I'd like it to move else-where, off-list or (better) IRL.



___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct

Re: Silent majority

[Timothy Pearson]

On 09/06/2018 12:25 AM, b...@gnu.org wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I don't know nothing about what's been talked about in this thread.
> 
> This is just a reminder that there are probably many subscribers like
> me who don't have a clue of what is at stake here.
> 
> Perhaps you should gather in a field, organize a tournament and come
> back when someone wins -- or have a good discussion somewhere IRL?
> 
> In any case, please keep in mind that some readers may be completely
> lost and partially fed up with the spectacle.
> 
> Thanks,
> 

You can even have a tournament with libre software if desired:

https://www.xonotic.org/faq/#how-do-i-start-a-server

Last man standing gets control of the organization?

All jesting aside, I'm also tired of seeing this flood of internal
politics and bickering.  It makes the entire FSFe and membership look bad.

-- 
Timothy Pearson
Raptor Engineering
+1 (415) 727-8645 (direct line)
+1 (512) 690-0200 (switchboard)
https://www.raptorengineering.com
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct