[ANN] pidgin git import v5
felipe.contreras at gmail.com
Fri May 25 05:57:45 EDT 2012
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Eoin Coffey <ecoffey at gmail.com> wrote:
> So making arguments about *how* git *can* do this, or *technically* hg
> *doesn't* do this one thing "right" is all well and good, but they're
> occurring in a vacuum. This is not about parity and theoretical
> "can"s and "can't"s.
Let me ask you this; why do you think Adium did release an analysis
for their options?
Why Adium selection was all about can and can'ts, and Pidgin selection is not?
> It's about what the majority of current, active developers on the project are using.
IOW; the result of the "analysis" boils down to "we like hg". How is
that different what I've been pointing out?
> 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
At the danger of sounding belligerent (let me assure you that's not my
intention), I propose you follow this thought experiment; lets suppose
in a parallel universe the Pidgin developers did not do *any* of their
due diligence while choosing their next SCM; how would that universe
look like? Would it be very different? What is the proof that we are
not living in such a universe?
When you say "It's about what the majority of current, active
developers on the project are using", it doesn't look like there was
much due diligence involved.
But before you assume this is an act of aggression, read below.
> I love git, and use it at work and for personal stuff, and I think
> it's brilliant. And Felipe I get that you love it to, and you want so
> bad to spread it's gospel, and you feel very passionately that it is
> the ultimate right choice, but you can't force that on others, or
> force them to come to understand the world in your fashion.
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.
> Let's just take a breath and not let this thread yet again devolve
> into straw man personal snipes.
Contrary to what I might seem sometimes, I am not angry or upset, and
I believe the thread has been conducted in a civilized and somewhat
productive way (with the exception of Peter Lawler, but I'm not going
to reply to him because he is not acknowledging the obvious fact, as I
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.
At the very least I would expect Pidgin developers to acknowledge
there is no such analysis, maybe because of lack of time, or lack or
resources, but no explanation is needed... just acknowledge.
But that didn't happen, so I felt compelled to state it for the
record. That's all.
When I said:
Since you skipped the relevant part, I'm just going to state it for
the record: the Pidgin project does *not* plan to have a publicly
available analysis for the rationale to moving to mercurial like other
I did not mean to rock the boat, that was meant to leave that clear
for the record. That's all.
If nobody had replied to that, that would have been the end of that
topic. The replies still don't change that fact, they seem to try to
So, this is not about me forcing Pidgin developers to move to git, and
it's not even about me requesting a detailed analysis; it's about
making that fact clear for the record. And if you let that claim to
rest, so would I.
More information about the Devel