On Monday 12 October 2015 07:35:38 Ghislain Vaillant wrote: > * start-up times: *slow* is subjective and quite variable from one > user to another.
Subjectiveness is not the point here. Maybe it depends on size of repository
but in my testing on same machine and on same repositories, when started
multiple times (to make sure it uses caching) Gitg-3 starts 5 to 15 times
slower than Gitg-2.
> For instance, gitg-3 starts in no-time for me.
Apparently you compare "no-time" to nothing...
> * functionality regressions:
> - given upstream GNOME track record, this is unlikely to change?
I don't know about GNOME and I don't see how it is relevant. Gitg upstream
seems to be slowly moving in the right direction so it looks like there is
hope for Gitg...
> - following the same mindset, we would still be stuck with GNOME
> 2.x in Debian then?
I don't know. I never use GNOME (I'm not sure if it is worth using) otherwise
probably I would have known. Anyway to some extent Cinnamon and MATE are
GNOME-2 derivatives so in a way we are stuck with GNOME-2.
> Perhaps a separate source package for gitg-3 would please us all.
Yeah, I thought about that too. But most likely I will not be maintaining it
since I can't even use it myself. I'm prepared to orphan its dependency
library "libgit2-glib" as soon as somebody will be willing to maintain both.
> On a different note, since when sharing different views than someone
> else make them *irrational*. Was the judging really necessary here?
Sorry I had no intention to be judgemental. In your own words you've
expressed that you want new Gitg-3 for its nice UI but the price of new looks
are features that someone somewhere is using right now (myself included). I
hope you'd agree that trading features for new looks does not make much
sense.
--
Cheers,
Dmitry Smirnov.
---
Do your duty as you see it, and damn the consequences.
-- George S. Patton
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
