David, As one of the possible multitude of us who didn't vote on whether to switch, I can answer as to why I didn't. I have never used git before. So I was asked if I supported a switch from something that I know and use (ignoring whether I like SVN), to something I have no idea about. I choose to not say anything because anything that I say is pretty much uninformed. I don't think however that should be taken to mean that I support the switch. Your email implies to my reading that "if you're not against it, you're for it" but I think that is too simplistic. You really need a third option like "I know how to use SVN and I don’t see what the ROI on switching is"...
Or point me to a tutorial and some ROI and I will change and support the switch. -Jaben -----Original Message----- From: David Woodhouse [mailto:dw...@infradead.org] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 4:30 PM To: Cameron Esfahani Cc: edk2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [edk2] Git as an svn alternative - was [PATCH] Fix broken IA32 ... On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 21:08 -0800, Cameron Esfahani wrote: > Well, I'll offer my two cents then: I mostly avoid projects that use > git. Seriously, or were you just messing with me? I've never heard that before, although I was very serious about avoiding projects in Subversion. I'm just too used to having a local git tree and using the history of the project to learn the code. When I'm forced to deal with Subversion or CVS, I'm dragged back into the 20th century and every operation is *slow* as it has to go over the network to the server. And if I'm on a plane, it's not just slow — it's broken. There's also a distinct correlation between those projects which use Subversion, and those projects which make *other* decisions which I find to be suboptimal. To the extent that the use of Subversion is a fairly good indicator that I'm not likely to like the *code* very much either. I'm deadly serious when I say that it puts me off, right from the start. Using Subversion certainly makes it much harder for various people to collaborate around a central code base, pulling patches from one tree to another. That's what a *distributed* version control system is for, and that's really what we need to enable and encourage with EDK2. So I'd be interested to know if you really meant what you said, and why it has that effect. It was also interpreted as the only vote *against* the idea of storing EDK2 in git, so I'd like to check if you really meant that too. Thanks. -- dwmw2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/edk2-devel
