[Kde-scm-interest] meeting summary

[Oswald Buddenhagen]

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 03:23:13PM +0100, Thomas Zander wrote:
> On Thursday 10. December 2009 00.03.14 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > set up the system as intended (by johan, i dare to claim)
> 
> When I asked Johan about this over lunch last week he said the opposite; 
> surely you can use this, but its not the intention nor the best solution.
> 
well. too bad. :P

> > and everyone should be happy until something yet better is
> > added to gitorious. the setup is as follows:
> 
> Everyone should be happy because you think its the right solution,
> hmm, no. 
>
no, because it *is* the right solution given the constraints. at least,
nobody has offered anything which would prove otherwise.

> But you pushed it through in an extremely rude manner while people
> objected to the solution
>
actually, by the time people started objecting, the about 5 mouse clicks
were long done. the only delay was in populating the amarok-developers
group, but jeff did that rather quickly.

> and you just claimed that, obviously, that must mean they don't
> understand it.
> 
because, quite frankly, those who complained most demonstrated -
repeatedly - that they didn't understand it. the rest (and some of the
former, once they understood it) objects based on reasons which are
effectively irrelevant - the current solution is the only acceptable one
to a wider audience for the time being.

> As I said on IRC yesterday, being able to work together and get
> consensus is paramount here. You will not get all KDE people to agree
> to git at all if there is no consensus within the group of people that
> really want it.
>
i don't care about consensus when logic dictates that there is only one
acceptable solution.
you should also know that "getting everyone on board by good example" is
a pipe dream anyway.
oh, and btw, as i stated repeatedly, i'm not in "the group of people
that really want it". i'm consider myself a consultant to help, and a
policeman to prevent "you" from doing (permanent) damage to "my" working
infrastructure. if you choose to bypass me, history will prove in the
end that i was right, and i'll have a laugh at you. and live with the
consequences of your "consensus". it's not like it didn't happen before.
repeatedly.