[ANN] pidgin git import v5

[Felipe Contreras]

Peter Lawler wrote:
> On 24/05/12 06:35, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Richard Laager <rlaager at wiktel.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 14:28 +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >>> Since you skipped the relevant part, I'm just going to state it for
> >>> the record: the Pidgin project does *not* plan to have a publicly
> >>> available analysis for the rationale to moving to mercurial like other
> >>> projects have[1][2][3][4].
> >>
> >> This has been discussed publicly on the mailing list.
> > 
> > Discussed yes, analyzed in detail and carefully list the pros and cons
> > of each option--no.
> 
> IAJACPW, but from my reading of the threads in January it seemed to me
> that a bunch of points were gone through, a decision was taken to go
> with .hg.
> 
> You, and only you, seem unhappy with the decision taken and then called
> for an in depth analysis.

Red herring: appeal to motive; my motives are irrelevant, the analysis
is still missing.

> I don't think that it'd be unreasonable to conclude that this is
> because you're unhappy with the decision and you want the decision to
> go to hg to be changed. I would ask you, if you - or anyone else -
> were to produce such an analysis and hg was still chosen, what would
> you request then?

I am not requesting anything, I am merely pointing out the facts, and
the _suggestion_ is obvious.

In case you missed the text you are replying to:

> >>> Since you skipped the relevant part, I'm just going to state it for
> >>> the record: the Pidgin project does *not* plan to have a publicly

All you have to do is say "We will not provide an analysis", that's it.

Of course, you know how bad that sounds, and it's understandable that
you are reluctant to say so, but that should prompt you to provide an
analysis, not to avoid the fact.

Since nobody has stepped forward and said so, I wanted to leave it clear
for the record. That's all.

> On this point, I note that it's been around 5 months since you mentioned
> wanting to see an analysis. No one else on the list seems to have cared
> for one, with or without as much passion as you have. I encourage you to
> produce one ASAP.

You want _me_ to provide an analysis of why pidgin developers are
choosing mercurial? I don't think anybody can provide such analysis and
leave the decision in good light without missing some important
information. Feel free to prove me wrong.

I might come up with sucn analysis, but I doubt it would help anyone.

In any case, I'm not interested in discussing my motives, or my agenda,
or any other red herrings. I believe there would not be any purpose on
continuing this thread with you (Peter Lawler), until you start by
acnlowledging the fact that there is no publicly available summarized
analysis, and there will not be one.

And if you acknowledge that, I don't see anything else in your mail that
can be discussed.

So, I'm not going to reply to you until you acknowledge that.

Cheers.

BTW. I subscribed again to the mailing list, since apparently some
people can't train themselves to always click reply-to-all, when they
actually want to reply to all.

-- 
Felipe Contreras