On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 06:19:26PM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Segher Boessenkool <seg...@kernel.crashing.org>: > > There is absolutely no reason to trust a system that supposedly was > > already very mature, but that required lots of complex modifications, > > and even a complete rewrite in a different language, that even has its > > own bug tracker, to work without problems (although we all have *seen* > > some of its many problems over the last years), and at the same time > > bad-mouthing simple scripts that simply work, and have simple problems. > > Some factual corrections: > > I didn't port to Go to fix bugs, I ported for better performance.
That is not a correction, because that is not what I said. > I very carefully *didn't* bad-mouth Maxim's scripts - in facrt I have > said on-list that I think his approach is on the whole pretty > intelligent. To anyone who didn't have some of the experiences I have > had, even using git-svn to analyze basic blocks would appear > reasonable and I don't actually fault Maxim for it. And yet, you do it once again now. Judge the conversion candidates by what they are, not by if the tool to create them is named "reposurgeon" or not. > I *did* bad-mouth git-svn - and I will continue to do so until it no > longer troubles the world with botched conversions. Relying on it is, > in my subject-matter-expert opinion, unacceptably risky. While I don't > blame Maxim for not being aware of this, it remains a serious > vulnerability in his pipeline. More unfounded aspersions. Yay. > I don't know how it is on your planet, but here on Earth having a > bug tracker - and keeping it reasonably clean - is generally > considered a sign of responsible maintainership. Having a bugtracker is a sign of having more bugs than you can count on one hand. > In conclusion, I'm happy that you're so concerned about bugs in > reposurgeon. I am concerned if the conversion we eeventually select will be usable for our purposes. And I am concerned it will take some more years. Segher
