[ANN] pidgin git import v5

[Felipe Contreras]

On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 1:47 AM, John Bailey <rekkanoryo at rekkanoryo.org> wrote:
> 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.

Suppose I'm a newcomer to Pidgin development, and I ask you guys; why
didn't you switch to git?; you probably would have to repeat the same
thing over again, and then, when I ask; where is the rationale for
that decision? You would repeat what you said above.

I, a hypothetical newcomer, couldn't help but wonder that perhaps this
analysis was not conducted in the best way.

I'm not trying to bash on you guys, all I'm trying to say is that
given enough eyeballs all bugs are shallow, and analyses are not
exempted. If a summary on this analysis was publicized online, it
would have had higher changes of spotting areas of improvement.

Woulda coulda shoulda.

But I must point out that what you said can be translated to; the
reason for switching to mercurial is; "we forgot the details, but hg
and git are the same for us, and we like hg better"; it still doesn't
look good.

> 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.

I find the "edge" of hg questionable, but there is not format in which
I can really nail down the issues with the analysis.

>>> 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).

Yes, you could have, but then you wouldn't be switching to another SCM.

What I'm saying is that when you are switching to another SCM, a
public analysis is important, and desirable, and would decrease your
chances that down the road you find out you chose the wrong one.

>> 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.

You could discuss it again. Given that the choice of SCM is an
important one and would affect the project for years to come, it would
be in everybody's interest to make sure it's the right decision.

> (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.

Good--you acknowledge it.

>> 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.

How long would it take to do that? It cannot take more than one week.
Maybe even a day, since you already did such analysis.

> 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.

Hopefully that doesn't become part of the reason to switch to hg (John
Bailey had the time so he just went ahead). Now, if you have 7 days
off, why not spend one trying to gather the analysis? it might even
take a couple of hours. Would it prompt you to reconsider if you find
out you missed something? Either way, the switch must happen, doesn't
matter to what, as long as it's not monotone, so please don't think
I'm trying to hold you back on that. But given than the scripts to
convert to hg are not finished (although the ones to switch to git
mostly are), I have my doubts the conversion would happen in the next
10 days.

Anyway, if I try to gather all I could to make a summary of the
analysis myself (which would be limited given that I wasn't in the
XMPP channel), would you be willing to make it the official one? (with
the corrections that you might find), would you reconsider if the
result of the analysis points in a direction you didn't expect it to?
(I would be adding my arguments as well). If so, I would be willing to
give it a try.

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras