[ANN] pidgin git import v5

[Eoin Coffey]

I've been an observer on this list for a good long while now, and I've
seen this thread come up a lot.

Are there good reasons to pick git? Sure
Are there good reasons to pick hg? Sure

Are the complements of the two feature sets big enough that you've
crippled a project one way or another regardless of which you choose?
I don't believe so.

So making arguments about *how* git *can* do this, or *technically* hg
*doesn't* do this one thing "right" is all well and good, but they're
occurring in a vacuum.  This is not about parity and theoretical
"can"s and "can't"s.  It's about what the majority of current, active
developers on the project are using. If that means hg, well that's it
I guess. Or monotone, that's cool too. I mean isn't one of the BSDs
still releasing quality software with CVS?

I love git, and use it at work and for personal stuff, and I think
it's brilliant.  And Felipe I get that you love it to, and you want so
bad to spread it's gospel, and you feel very passionately that it is
the ultimate right choice, but you can't force that on others, or
force them to come to understand the world in your fashion.

I'm not saying to stop using git, or to delete the scripts you've made
or anything; I'm just trying to point out that there is more to this
than just a technical check list comparison. That if you *really* want
pidgin to switch to git you might have to win people over organically.
What I mean by that is that if developers are using a git mirror and
pushing stuff that way, and it becomes a burden for the project to
accept good code and patches from a varied array of people, then maybe
that's an argument for a switch.

Also, I'd like to point out that I do respect the effort and work
you've put into this, and your knowledge of both git and hg seem
impressive. This is not a personal attack, or intended to call your
abilities as a programmer into question.

Let's just take a breath and not let this thread yet again devolve
into straw man personal snipes.

-Eoin

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Peter Lawler <bleeter at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 25/05/12 07:34, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> Peter Lawler wrote:
>
>>> 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.
> Blatantly false. Your motive is highly relevant as any analysis produced
> would have to meet your standard. Thus, whoever produced such an
> analysis would have to consider not just what you want but why so that a
> full, detailed and exacting paper could be produced to satisfy your
> demand for such a paper.
>
>> I am not requesting anything,
> <snip>
>> All you have to do is say "We will not provide an analysis", that's it.
> Seems like a request to me.
>
>> 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.
> Once again, you're requesting an analysis be provided whilst
> simultaneously claiming you're not requesting anything. Your repeated
> attempts to bully and intimidate volunteers to doing is disgraceful. It
> would appear that you are shameless.
>
>>> 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.
> You're the person who wants this thing done. You've not convinced me,
> nor it'd seem anyone else on this list, of a need for me to lift a
> finger to do this thing for you. You then passively suggest that the
> decision is bad.
>
>> I might come up with sucn analysis, but I doubt it would help anyone.
> You're allegedly not requesting anyone do anything, then request someone
> to do something, then say that you won't do it yourself, and the thing
> you're after wouldn't help anyone anyway.
>
>> 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.
>
> hahahahahaha ... hahaha
>
>> 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.
> Go have a cry, (Felipe Contreras). Or find someone else to try and bully.
>
> Or better still, before having a crack at someone for mistakenly
> pressing the wrong REPLY button, install and use a spell checker that
> enforces proper spelling of words between pressing SEND and actually
> sending your emails.
>
> Pete.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at pidgin.im
> http://pidgin.im/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel