tech-repository archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: Proposal for more reliable git mirroring

Hi Jeff

On 03/01/2014 21:57, Jeff Rizzo wrote:
I've had enough other pleasant (very!) dealings with you that I'm
giving you the benefit of the doubt, here, but please be aware that
your tone here is coming across as fairly hostile and abrasive - and I
don't think anything I've said or done has warranted that.

One of my character flaws I'm afraid when something just rubs me the wrong way. My people skills to lack from time to time. We've had a good friendship in the past and I wouldn't want to affect that in anyway, but equally I feel I must say what I believe when in disagreement especially as your tone was "my way or the highway".

 I am
proposing to do work to address an issue which is relevant to some
(many, in my view) people.  I'm sorry if you're not one of those
people. Please also see comments inline, below.

Oh don't get me wrong, changing from CVS is very relevant to me. I just feel that going to git directly is the wrong approach.
By moving to fossil as the main repository it allows several things

1. We can ship fossil in the base system quite easily - this is just not practical with git as functionality dependant on python or perl would not work.
2. It's possible to have a bi directional fossil <-> git bridge

While 2. would equally work with git as the "main" repository I strongly feel that NetBSD should be self updating from the base system. Also, you then get to work with the SCM of your choice. I choose fossil, you choose git. I'm also sure that there could be caveats to this approach, but equally I think it warrants investigation.

So in summary
1) You feel that NetBSD is a left-behind software project

Ok, this was supposed to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, and I didn't do
a good job of indicating that.  I've been working with netbsd for
quite nearly 20 years at this point, and yes, in many ways (not the
most important, or I wouldn't bother!) it is left behind - just to
keep up, in many ways, requires substantially more effort for a
NetBSD-based project than many others.  It is, no question, a "special
snowflake" in a lot of ways.  I have also put a fair amount into
working with other SCMs - monotone is *still* my favorite, and it does
stuff that no other SCM does.  Stuff that would be good to have.  But
it has shortcomings (as do all of the other solutions) that I'm not
prepared to address.  All of the solutions have shortcomings.  See

I've spent over 20 years myself with open source, although only recently in comparison with NetBSD. As to the last point all software design that differs has a shortcoming somewhere compared to another product. If we had the one design fits all mentality then we, nor NetBSD, would be here.

2) You want to go with the crowd (which crowd?) chosen SCM regardless of other merits
Um, no.  I do, however, want to be able to occasionally leverage other
people's work to solve problems similar to those I have had. Just once
in a while, maybe, I want to find that someone else has already solved
the problem I had - an experience that I've been having less and less
for NetBSD over the years.

Not seeing how this is relevant to Git vs the World.
I can understand it when compared to CVS and it's craptastic web viewer, but pretty much anything else helps me to find solutions via changesets. I'm amazed that FreeBSD uses svn (yay changesets) but they use ViewVC still (wtf is a changeset???)

3) Source code management isn't important for you

No; what I said (or meant to say, anyway) was that it's not the
primary focus of what I want to work on.  I'm not proposing to switch
away from cvs, yet, (and if/when we do, it's by no means certain that
we would do so for git) but I would like to take advantage of git's
popularity to make it easier for others to try this OS that I love and
have put so many unpaid hours into over the years.

I would argue that this only affect developers, not users.
Well, unless users update their sources via CVS, but that isn't really a pain. That being said, I buy into the fact that we lose some by currently using CVS. However, I don't buy into the fact that going to something less popular than git would be detrimental than going with git.

I would even argue that because fossil is more suited to our workflow and ideals (at least as it seems to me) we would lose less developers who would leave due to sticking with CVS or moving to GIT. At this point I don't see that changing to GIT gains developers, anymore than changing to fossil would. It seems to me more relevant to change so not to alienate current developers.



Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index