On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > Ramkumar Ramachandra <artag...@gmail.com> writes: > >> I think Felipe is using the argument that perl is declining to answer >> the question "why didn't you write git-related in perl instead?"; >> that's it. > > A question which nobody asked, I presume? > > I think we heard enough from packaging folks that a new dependency > is unwelcome.
What are you talking about? Which are these "packaging folks" we heard from? > Also we heard from no regular/high-value reviewers > that they feel comfortable reviewing additions in Ruby. Correction; *current* regular/high-value reviewers. > So at least for now, the conclusion is to take approach #1, i.e. > somebody who finds "related" a good addition rewrites it in Perl to > promote it out of contrib/ once the design issues settle (of course > it is still a possibility that no such volunteer appears). Regardless of what you conclude, Perl still continues to die, and by clinging to a dying language, all we do is hurt the project. There's tons of people that are familiar with Git and Ruby, but these people are not in this mailing list because there's nothing for them to discuss, because Git doesn't use Ruby. By making conclusions based on the comments from people who do follow the mailing list *currently*, you are being biased towards the status quo. It's no surprise that you decided to keep the status quo. We could change, and we would probably receive a big influx of fresh contributors happy that they can contribute in their favorite language. But we won't do that, why? Because you already decided that's not going to happen, because you are making the false assumption that things in the future can only be like things have been in the past. -- Felipe Contreras -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
