[ANN] pidgin git import v5

[John Bailey]

On 05/25/2012 05:57 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> Let me ask you this; why do you think Adium did release an analysis
> for their options?[1]
> 
> Why Adium selection was all about can and can'ts, and Pidgin selection is not?

The vast majority of our analysis was conducted in a conversation in the
devel at conference.pidgin.im XMPP MUC.  This has been pointed out before.  Since
I'm the one responsible for the discussion, it would have been my responsibility
to provide some sort of log or summarization.  I do not log chats, so I had no
logs to post or summarize.  This discussion is the one in which we threw out
options like darcs, bzr, etc.  If this is a sticking point for anyone, there's
nothing that can be done about it now.

As I recall, the general consensus we reached from that discussion was that both
git and hg were sufficient for our needs.  Sure, each has interesting, unique
features that the other does not, but both tools meet our core needs, which for
the record were:
	* Distributed, with capability to have a central "official" repository
	* Faster than monotone
	* Less of a bandwidth hog than monotone
	* Supported in more tools than monotone
	* Capable of supporting our workflow
	* Able to convert our monotone database (whether via external tools or via
built-in methods)
	* Easier for new contributors to use than monotone (from their perspective--we
don't see monotone as a particularly difficult concept to grasp)

As you can see, *both* git and hg meet all the needs listed.  Yes, in some cases
one tool may have an edge over the other, but both are perfectly acceptable
solutions.

>> It's about what the majority of current, active developers on the project are using.
> 
> IOW; the result of the "analysis" boils down to "we like hg". How is
> that different what I've been pointing out?

Yes, the final decision came down to what the majority of developers preferred.
 I don't see a problem with this considering that both git and hg meet all our
core needs.  To the best of my knowledge, no one who was party to the decision
or discussion leading up to the decision is actively upset/hurt/angry over the
decision.

>> If that means hg, well that's it I guess.
> 
> Of course that's it, but this is a tautology; Pidgin developers are
> going to choose what they are going to choose, what else would they
> do?

Not trying to be a smartass here, but realistically, we could have said "screw
it, it's too much work" and just stayed with monotone forever.  We didn't,
however, because we realize that overall monotone is on the decline and becoming
more painful than it's worth.  That said, we have tremendous respect for the
monotone project and what it's done for us over the past 5 years (give or take a
few months).

> At the danger of sounding belligerent (let me assure you that's not my
> intention), I propose you follow this thought experiment; lets suppose
> in a parallel universe the Pidgin developers did not do *any* of their
> due diligence while choosing their next SCM; how would that universe
> look like? Would it be very different? What is the proof that we are
> not living in such a universe?
> 
> When you say "It's about what the majority of current, active
> developers on the project are using", it doesn't look like there was
> much due diligence involved.

Since my day job is in an IT department at a bank, the words "due diligence"
carry particularly heavy meaning for me.  We have to perform due diligence
research and evaluation for every major project we take on.  I have personally
conducted and advised on a number of due diligence exercises, more than I care
to remember just in the past year, so I know the process.

That said, we as a project are not a business.  We're a group of volunteers, as
we've stated hundreds, even thousands of times already.  To me, "due diligence"
in the project scope is satisfied by the simple "does it meet our core needs"
discussion mentioned above.  Everything beyond that is preference and bonus.

> How am I forcing anyone? I am simply trying to point out that there's
> no analysis for the switch, you seem to acknowledge there is no
> analysis, although not directly stating it.

There is no public analysis.  At this point, there cannot be one, considering
that the discussion that comprised our analysis happened so long ago and I do
not have logs.  (We refuse, as a practice, to ask others for logs, and I don't
intend to break that practice.) There, I've said it--there isn't and won't be a
publicly-posted analysis.  This is not an attempt to be hostile; rather this is
intended simply to be as clear as I can possibly be, and I apologize if it
appears hostile.

> Let me be clear, once again; if Pidgin chooses mercurial, so be it; I
> still think an official analysis would be tremendously beneficial, and
> might even prompt you to reconsider, but even if the analysis leaves
> mercurial as the selection, it would still be beneficial, at the very
> least there would be proof that due diligence was done.

We have chosen hg; that said, we haven't actually pulled the trigger on the
conversion.  If other members of the project want to start over, do another
analysis (maybe even changing the must-have's and adding would-be-nice's to the
list), we can do so.  I was hoping, since I have 7 of the next 10 days off from
work, to spend some time digging through stuff in the next week and a half and
finally pull the trigger on the conversion, but I can put that on hold if others
feel it's necessary.  Unfortunately, if I put this on hold, the next significant
block of time I'll have to look at conversion is September.

> At the very least I would expect Pidgin developers to acknowledge
> there is no such analysis, maybe because of lack of time, or lack or
> resources, but no explanation is needed... just acknowledge.

Does what I've said here satisfy that desire for acknowledgement?

I hope that this response serves to clarify the points raised.

John