On 11/30/2014 11:56 AM, Donald Stufft wrote: >> On Nov 30, 2014, at 2:28 PM, Ethan Furman <et...@stoneleaf.us> wrote: >> >> My issues with GitHub range from selfish to philosophical: >> >> - (selfish) I don't want to learn git > > Note: That you don’t actually have to learn git, you can clone a git > repository > with Mercurial using hg-git and continue to use Mercurial locally. The same of > course can be said for the *other* way, but I’d argue that putting the burden > of > using things like hg-git or git-remote-hg on the less popular tool is a better > overall decision.
Fair enough. >> - (practical) from what I hear git can have issues with losing history -- >> in a >> project that has many volunteer and part-time developers, using a tool >> that >> can munge your data just doesn't seem very wise > > I have never heard of git losing history. Git goes out of it’s way not to lose > things. Even unreferences commits don’t go away for months unless you > purposely > prune them. I’d personally call this FUD unless there’s some citation here. Okay. >> - (practical) supporting git and hg means learning two different workflows > > As I mentioned in my other email, we’re already supporting two different > tools, > and it’s a hope of mine to use this as a sort of testbed to moving the other > repositories as well. That should be in the PEP then. >> - (philosophical) in a commercial world we vote with our dollars (don't >> like how >> a company behaves? don't buy their product); in an OSS world we vote by >> whose >> services/software we use; I don't want to support, or appear to support, >> a >> company that is abusive and sexist towards its employees: it is not what >> the >> PSF supports, and it's definitely not what I support. > > I’m assuming this is about Github. Yes. > I’ll say that Github has, at least publicly, made steps towards doing better > than > they had previously there. I’m not a Github employee so I can’t speak towards > that. > > It almost feels like there is some amount of co-opting this incident as a > shield > to hide behind. Most people who make this statement are more than happy to > continue > to use Linux for example, even though Linus is well documented being extremely > abusive towards people and has more or less said that he’s never going to > change > that. Linux is not my choice. ;) Linus is also one person, not an entire company. > I also think it’s hard to look at a company like bitbucket, for example, and > say they are *better* than Github just because they didn’t have a public and > inflammatory event. In cases like this it's not "better" but "willing to work with". BitBucket might be as hostile as GitHub, only someone who has worked for both could really know. > [...] than refusing to use a product of one group of people over another just > because > the other group hasn’t had a public and inflammatory event. We can only make decisions on information we have; pretending we don't have it, or that some other company /could/ be the same, is hiding our heads in the sand. If git is the wave of the future, there are other git hosts besides GitHub. -- ~Ethan~
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
