Git Migration Needs YOU!

[Aaron J. Seigo]

On March 8, 2010, you wrote:
> On Thursday 04 March 2010 14:22:46 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > On March 4, 2010, you wrote:
> > great; if you could communicate who that KDAB person is to the git
> > 
> >  migration team that will help keep communication smooth.
> 
> Stephen Kelly. He's already starting documenting what our needs and wishes
> are in the wiki last week, and he'll engage with the SCM folk.

awesome; thanks for this.

the entry on the wiki needs a fair amount of work. it currently contains a 
definition of the challenges for kdepim, which can essentially be summed up as 
"we don't know enough about using git", "we have other things to do" and "we 
have to figure out how to create a git repository from the somewhat convoluted 
svn history". the first two items are not blockers, per se, though they are 
useful to know what is needed by the kdepim team. the third item is actually 
already in the blockers list under "Write / update importing rules for 
svn2git".

i'll try and find Stephen to discuss these issues with him further and see if 
we can't work this into something that can be used to create a schedule on the 
one hand and to document the information kdepim developers need on the other.

> > > 6 weeks from now as an earliest possible
> > > move date is definitely totally out of the question, I'm afraid. :/
> > 
> > to be honest, i'm disappointed by this news. we'll have to work with it,
> > obviously, though it certainly shows up some inefficiencies inherent in
> > how
> > 
> >  we manage (or don't) the connective tissue between the commercial
> >  interests around kdepim and kde as a whole. it's probably not just
> >  kdepim, either, but a general weakness we have that is just most
> >  visible here. while there's nothing more we can do about this now than
> >  we already are doing now, it's something to keep in our minds as we
> >  work on improvements in the future, perhaps.
> 
> Sorry, but you're picking an effort estimate number we came up with, pull
> it out of context, try to nail us to it as a wall clock time deadline,
> from an arbitrary and sudden start date, and then you are disappointed
> that we don't commit to that? Please.

every time we do another round of communication and still don't have enough 
information to name a day on the calendar as our target day, it is 
disappointing.

it is disappointing that it's going to take longer than 6 calendar weeks, and 
it is disappointing that we still don't know what that number will be. it is 
disappointing how difficult it is to get people charged with looking after 
significant projects to participate in topics that are of KDE-wide importance 
when they aren't seen as critical to that specific project (local vs global 
thinking). keep in mind that the git migration project as we know it now 
started sometime last year (with foundational discussions happening even prior 
that iirc).

we do at least have a lower bound now and a much better idea of what kdepim 
needs, and that's significant progress which i am appreciative of.

but we need to get some real scheduling information pinned down, and until we 
manage that i will continue to be personally unsatisfied with the results. 
that isn't an indictment of any particular project, or of kdepim in 
particular. it just means that right now i can't be satisfied with the state 
of things, and imho neither should you be. when we've got enough information 
to build a proper schedule with, then we can stop being disappointed. :)

> I agree that we could be doing
> better wrt interfacing with the commercial entities, though, I suggest we
> don't hijack this thread for that discussion.

yes, this is a bigger topic and one that deserves proper attention on its own.

-- 
Aaron J. Seigo
humru othro a kohnu se
GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA  EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43

KDE core developer sponsored by Qt Development Frameworks