4.6 branches created in git again

[Tom Albers]

----- Original Message -----
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 08:24:24PM +0000, Tom Albers wrote:
> > I'm a team player, that means I trust on others to educate me,
> > correct me
> >
> you may have noticed that all the job ads looking for team players
> also
> emphasize independence and self-motivation. i.e., the ability to
> complete day-to-day tasks on your own.

My day-to-day task was to be helpful in this thread. And I could complete that just fine without knowing what a ref is. The only part I was not sure of I clearly indicated that someone else needs to look at it.


> > that also means I don't have to learn git.
> >
> hearing that from a sysadmin makes me *really* scared.

The sysadmin team has knowledge enough about git and I'm happy to leave the things I don't know to them.

> but then, kde always had the culture of fixing mistakes instead of
> avoiding them (as in, stuff that gets committed).

Yes, this is different than a commercial company indeed.

> we have about 500
> backups (clones) of the repositories and nobody except me seems to
> care
> whether the scm history is useful anyway.

>From close by I've seen several git repo's being declined by fellow sysadmins and people from kde-git, because the history was incomplete or stuff was missing. I've seen several discussions about what would be the 'right' history and a lot of people cared. I think you are mistaken here.

> so whatever - let's have
> fun!
> had your daily pull --rebase screwup already? no? way to go ...

Let me be clear: I'm very careful about the stuff I do with git and I understood the discussion about the --rebase problem just fine, after this list made clear I had to watch out for that. I actually did research and talked to people to understand it, because the discussion was a bit confusing to me.

Best,
-- 
Tom Albers
KDE Sysadmin