From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on sa.int.altlinux.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.3 Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 04:01:09 +0300 From: Michael Shigorin To: peter@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20080604010109.GT13898@osdn.org.ua> Mail-Followup-To: peter@freebsd.org, smoke-room@lists.altlinux.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: smoke-room@lists.altlinux.org Subject: [room] on SVN/GIT X-BeenThere: smoke-room@lists.altlinux.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.10b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: shigorin@gmail.com, =?koi8-r?b?69XM2NTV0s7ZyiDPxtTP0MnL?= List-Id: =?koi8-r?b?69XM2NTV0s7ZyiDPxtTP0MnL?= List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 01:01:14 -0000 Archived-At: List-Archive: Hello, several thoughts while quoting http://wiki.freebsd.org/VCSWhy: > Linus wrote git to suit his needs for linux. He has one thing > going for us that we don't. There is a large cult of > personality surrounding Linus. There is intense pressure to > "validate" your work by getting it approved (directly or by > proxy) by Linus. I always thought that quite a few freebsd folks were sort of dumb in their inability to judge facts, but this is by far one of the most scary examples. There's no "cult of personality" in itself there. There are no "his needs for linux". There _is_ a workflow and a management style that just helps people be more productive. It also involves attitude. But it also involves workflow. And tools. http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Git_Management > On the other hand, we already have problems extracting work > from people. We can't assume that we'll get the same inward > flow that Linus gets. I think that with this level of fear and lack of reasonable behaviour you can safely assume quite the opposite. > there are some choice quotes I think that quite some of yours from this wiki page *are* (not just *read* to me) way more idiotic than what you try to make of Linus' ones. Like: > Uhh, what? We'd have to split src/* into a mess of subtrees to make git work well? You can split your mess into a less messy one, or you can leave it as is. You can make git work better for you, or you can continue working for cvs (or svn, no real difference). Go ask xorg folks, some of them was heard saying "linux folks got it right" after some work has been done on post-7.0 bunch of repos. IIRC he was referring to avoiding bit rot in what is naturally more tightly coupled than the rest. > Having "secret" work areas is a good thing??? Ever heard of r/o cvs replicas? No? There's a nice internet search service running on Linux, you might still be interested in finding out what he might have meant and you seem to have misunderstood. Also recommended reading: http://tomayko.com/writings/the-thing-about-git > We're not Linux. A good number of our best supporters stick with us > because we're a coherent tree and not like linux' chaos. Got five minutes of pride, eh? Well, let's see where your soapbox is in five years. Is "linux' chaos" like multiple vendors with _supported_ branches for not, speaking your language, bare basesystem but a subset of ports as well while you can't afford to even branch an upstream properly, not even talking of ports at all? or is it like not having to give up on _development_ practices like branches only because the tool is broken and so is the mind that follows that tool? > That seems to be what a git strategy requires in order to work well. Go educate yourself please. > hg: attitude of developers (pro, they seem very accomodating..) Poor hg. >> Why do you seem to be pushing subversion? > It's because I am. I think the whole hg/git thing is a distraction. It's because you are what? Someone with no ability to reason beyond "because"? I think that your "I think" is a bit stretched: you seem to rather /feel/. Like a blonde. > We need something NOW. svn will work for us and gains us some > huge benefits immediately. [...] FWIW, if p4 hadn't come along > and worked, we would have been using svn for the last 2-3 > years. In another 2-3 years, folks might dig this up on Google and wonder what was the logic to say that: - p4 was unfortunately "good enough" to stay in old and broken development paradigm, while - svn was suddenly Good Enough(TM) to let freebsd stay with its trusty customary paradigm! Bothering to change horses might just be nice reason to rethink much deeper things than what you have on your very nose, the particular tool. You have broken paradigm, and still you refuse to acknowledge that, gnarling pointlessly that someone else refuses patches when you have to extort them and not paying attention to "how come?" part of that. It's what I've told for years on freebsd crowd: you don't want to see further than your nose, and still you take pride in that. Silly. Good luck in seeing things though. -- ---- WBR, Michael Shigorin ------ Linux.Kiev http://www.linux.kiev.ua/