[Kde-scm-interest] A concept for "moving to Git" and translations

[Albert Astals Cid]

A Divendres, 29 de maig de 2009, Chani va escriure:
> On May 28, 2009 18:46:05 Ian Monroe wrote:
> > On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Albert Astals Cid <aacid at kde.org> wrote:
> > > A Divendres, 29 de maig de 2009, Thomas Zander va escriure:
> > >> On Friday 29. May 2009 00.34.47 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> > >> > Well, everyone keeps saying "We are loosing developers because of
> > >> > SVN", can't I extend that to "We are loosing developers because of
> > >> > CURRENT_VCS"?
> > >>
> > >> only if CURENT_VCS equals svn.  What is your point?
> > >
> > > My point is that i don't see why "We are loosing developers because of
> > > SVN" is ok and "We are loosing developers because of git" is not ok now
> > > or in 3 years
> >
> > You've entirely lost me here.
>
> I think albert thinks that if we're losing developers now because they
> don't want to use svn, we may be just as likely to lose deveolpers in the
> future because they don't like git.
> I'm not sure where this "we're losing developers because of svn" argument
> came from in the first place, though.

AFAIR Aaron has been saying that to me quite a lot, or at least that's what i 
understood :D

>
> > > and why we should not make the scripty system vcs agnostic now that we
> > > have the 'chance'.
> >
> > Well decoupling parts of scripty from the VCS details is probably good
> > design, just don't think it should be a feature goal.
> >
> > > P.S: I know git is the r00lz and will never be anything better than it
> > > but there are some of us (stubborn in thiago notation) that still don't
> > > like it
> >
> > That's a pretty horrible reason to support multiple VCS's for the same
> > project though.
>
> supporting multiple vcs's because not everyone wants the same vcs... well,
> on the surface it doesn't sound so bad - but it really wouldn't work out in
> practice.
>
> people who are new to KDE would have a bunch of different VCS's to learn
> about, and people who contribute to multiple areas in KDE would have a
> bunch of vcs's to worry about too, and I think it would end up being quite
> annoying. and then there's the kde-review process and other code movement -
> it's a lot harder to move code+history between two different VCSs.
>
> switching to git is going to depend on a lot of communication and people in
> the community working together - there are already people worried using a
> distributed vcs might fragment the community. I think we can overcome that
> so long as it's handled well, but people wandering to entirely different
> VCS's might be a bit much.
>
> although someday, years from now, I bet something way better than git will
> come along, and it'll be convenient to have less switching work to be done
> then.
>
> in any case, I'm probably going to take the lazy route and just put git
> support in where it's needed. if someone wants to rewrite scripty entirely
> and make it all modular and shiny, go right ahead, but I don't have *that*
> much time on my hands.

Fair enough

Albert