Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
On 1/5/09, Johannes Schmid j...@jsschmid.de wrote: 6. Check all the documentation stuff on live.gnome.org that needs to be updated. That is really important because not everybody is familiar with git. There should also be a short introduction to git somewhere on the wiki. And some announcements should probably be made... And perhaps explain the benefits and cool stuff, if we are moving to !svn, we should take advantage of the new cool stuff introduced... that's where something like Federico's proposal to use gitorious fit. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/1/5 Ali Sabil ali.sa...@gmail.com: On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Olav Vitters o...@bkor.dhs.org wrote: On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 05:29:02PM -0500, David Zeuthen wrote: Uh, but that's exactly how I understood the proposal and I believe that the points I made (that you didn't respond to) still stands: That it's crazy to officially want to support git, bzr and hg *at* the same time *from* the same repo. It's just asking for trouble. That isn't true. It is Bzr on server, with Git support. Nothing about Hg, nothing about doing partly Git, partly Bzr. Sorry for not being clear in my explanations. Basically, as Olav pointed out, it is about having Bazaar on the server, with a git-serve plugin allowing it to fulfill the git client requests as well as the bzr client requests. The following scenarios will be possible: (bzr repo) - (git serve plugin) - network --- (git client) (bzr repo) - (bzr serve) - network --- (bzr client) both bzr and git will operate fully, nothing will be partially supported, since the bazaar repository format is a superset of the git repo format (ie. it stores more metadata). I talked about hg, just to highlight that the solution is quite future proof, because you can certainly apply the same solution to allow hg clients to access the repository. First of all, who is going to develop and maintain the git serve plugin? Whoever does it I bet the end result won't be as good as the native git. Emulators tend to behave differently from the native counterpart. Second, as David mentioned; what would happen in the case the git protocol is updated and backward compatibility is removed? We will need to wait until the git serve plugin is updated, possibly rewritten. Third, every repository format has advantages and drawbacks. So far it looks like the git repository format works for most people, what is the need to avoid it? Fourth, we should not re-invent the wheel, people use either bzr or git, and not both for a reason; depending on a theoretical git serve plugin is just asking for trouble. The way I understood the proposal, bazaar would be the official dvcs and a usable- albeit officially unsupported- git wrapper would be provided. Assuming that a future version of git doesn't introduce incompatibilities, the approach has the advantage of being an easy solution which works for all git and bazaar users. If a future version of git _is_ incompatible, the official bazaar access would be totally unaffected. That said, according to the survey most people use git. Most of those users don't care about bazaar access at all, but might be slightly irritated if there are any quirks with the git wrapper. If you'd like to try to make everyone happy then the wrapper approach has it's advantages. If you'd rather make a small group slightly annoyed and a bigger group totally happy then go with git. Fifth, if the majority of the GNOME community prefers git, why degrade the git experience with an emulation? It makes much more sense for the bzr minority to emulate bzr experience with bzr-git if so they desire. -- Felipe Contreras ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-l...@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list -Natan ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
Hi! Am Montag, den 05.01.2009, 16:23 +0100 schrieb Mathias Hasselmann: First of all I want to thank Behdad and the participants of the survey for giving us numbers. Second I want to complain about the direction this discussion takes. No idea why that many people become personal. This is really unpleasant. Third of all: What so complicated about this migration? As far as I see, the migration consists of the following steps, please tell me if I am too naive: 1. Identify admin scripts that must be ported from svn to git. So far I only know new-svn-repos. 2. Identify commit hooks which have to be ported. Should only global hooks be ported, or would the migration team also be responsible for porting module specific hooks? 3. Actually port the commit hooks. 4. Create snapshots of all SVN repositories using git-svn. 5. Now finish one repository after another: 1. Mark the SVN repository as read-only. 2. Run a final git-svn rebase. 3. Maybe strip git-svn information. 4. Install commit hooks. 5. Test the new git repository. 6. Make the new git repository public. Am I missing something? 6. Check all the documentation stuff on live.gnome.org that needs to be updated. That is really important because not everybody is familiar with git. There should also be a short introduction to git somewhere on the wiki. And some announcements should probably be made... Regards, Johannes signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
Jason D. Clinton wrote: On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Olav Vitters o...@bkor.dhs.org wrote: That isn't a contest. It is a survey. Please don't read more in to my email than I intended. There's no need to get defensive. http://www.gnome.org/~shaunm/survey/first-picks-permutations.png It seems to me that a lot of brain power, sysadmin time, and general I am a sysadmin and disagree with your notion that sysadmin time is somehow saved. I'd rather asses such things myself. Further, sysadmin time is not so important. Thank you for voicing your opinion. just all move on? Further, your explanation is incomplete. As you said, the graph is about people knowing two DVCS systems. I wouldn't say I knew 2. Those 6 are incomplete. I highlighted this statistical analysis because those 6 contain the subset of 4 vocal users demanding that we /also/ support bzr. Now before you reply: we have a clear need for git to work (ranked 1st 50% of the time, etc). But if you say move on, how do you think a switch is made? Magic? Please don't be patronizing. I'm not an idiot. Anyway, I'd rather add John Carr to the sysadmin team. I plan to make a proposal to switch GNOME to a DVCS where Git works using Johns suggestion. Then other sysadmins[1] can suggest whatever proposal they want. These proposals can be investigated on merit and then a one can be chosen (chosen as in: go ahead and try if this would work, not go ahead blindly; everything must be tested before a cutover). John's idea is a good one but it patently loses on technical merit. As stated by John here, git will only be support in a degraded, bastardized form because he chose bzr as the repository format: http://blogs.gnome.org/johncarr/2008/12/11/dvcs-for-gnome/#comment-172 Are we really going to go back to the days of CVS where file moves aren't supported? It strikes me that this very vocal minority--John and Robert Carr, Karl Lattimer and Rob Taylor (whom are four of the six people I mentioned above)--are potentially delaying even longer what we've wanted for more than two years, now. It is from these same people that came the suggestion that git users were a rapid, vocal minority. Why are we letting them derail this process? I have to say, that's the first time I've ever been called vocal! I think you over estimate a) how much I've said on the issue and b) how much I care. Have a nice day, Rob Moving will not be easy, obviously. But doing it John's way will be, in my technical analysis, an order of magnitude more painful. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-l...@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list -- Rob Taylor, Codethink Ltd. - http://codethink.co.uk ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
First of all I want to thank Behdad and the participants of the survey for giving us numbers. Second I want to complain about the direction this discussion takes. No idea why that many people become personal. This is really unpleasant. Third of all: What so complicated about this migration? As far as I see, the migration consists of the following steps, please tell me if I am too naive: 1. Identify admin scripts that must be ported from svn to git. So far I only know new-svn-repos. 2. Identify commit hooks which have to be ported. Should only global hooks be ported, or would the migration team also be responsible for porting module specific hooks? 3. Actually port the commit hooks. 4. Create snapshots of all SVN repositories using git-svn. 5. Now finish one repository after another: 1. Mark the SVN repository as read-only. 2. Run a final git-svn rebase. 3. Maybe strip git-svn information. 4. Install commit hooks. 5. Test the new git repository. 6. Make the new git repository public. Am I missing something? * Steps one and two have to be done by the current SVN admins. * Step three is a programming task and therefore can be done by each GNOME hacker knowing the programming languages used. * Step four rounds automatically and just needs some watching. * Step five could be done in parallel. So is it really true, that we don't have the man power to do this migration? I cannot believe this. Ciao, Mathias -- Mathias Hasselmann mathias.hasselm...@gmx.de http://taschenorakel.de/mathias/, http://www.openismus.com/ ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Olav Vitters o...@bkor.dhs.org wrote: On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 05:29:02PM -0500, David Zeuthen wrote: Uh, but that's exactly how I understood the proposal and I believe that the points I made (that you didn't respond to) still stands: That it's crazy to officially want to support git, bzr and hg *at* the same time *from* the same repo. It's just asking for trouble. That isn't true. It is Bzr on server, with Git support. Nothing about Hg, nothing about doing partly Git, partly Bzr. The potential problem I see is all of the remote branches will use different DVCS that do not support git + hg + bzr. So eventually all of us will be forced to use all three tools in order to merge changes from remote branches (unless we expect *all* people to provide *all* changes as patches in which case I don't see the real gain of switching to a distributed tool). -- Patryk Zawadzki ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 07:00:52AM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote: I'd like to help with another path forward, namely native git repositories since I believe that is what most of the community wants. As you said, it isn't clear how it could work for non-sysadmins to come up with clear proposal strategies and implementations. Are there others on the sysadmin team who are willing to work on such a transition? If so, how can I help? Don't know if there are other sysadmins who'd work on this. I've cc'ed gnome-sysadmin so that people can answer themselves instead of me guessing. I'll let John reply on all other questions. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
2009/1/5 Ali Sabil ali.sa...@gmail.com: On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Olav Vitters o...@bkor.dhs.org wrote: On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 05:29:02PM -0500, David Zeuthen wrote: Uh, but that's exactly how I understood the proposal and I believe that the points I made (that you didn't respond to) still stands: That it's crazy to officially want to support git, bzr and hg *at* the same time *from* the same repo. It's just asking for trouble. That isn't true. It is Bzr on server, with Git support. Nothing about Hg, nothing about doing partly Git, partly Bzr. Sorry for not being clear in my explanations. Basically, as Olav pointed out, it is about having Bazaar on the server, with a git-serve plugin allowing it to fulfill the git client requests as well as the bzr client requests. The following scenarios will be possible: (bzr repo) - (git serve plugin) - network --- (git client) (bzr repo) - (bzr serve) - network --- (bzr client) both bzr and git will operate fully, nothing will be partially supported, since the bazaar repository format is a superset of the git repo format (ie. it stores more metadata). I talked about hg, just to highlight that the solution is quite future proof, because you can certainly apply the same solution to allow hg clients to access the repository. First of all, who is going to develop and maintain the git serve plugin? Whoever does it I bet the end result won't be as good as the native git. Emulators tend to behave differently from the native counterpart. Second, as David mentioned; what would happen in the case the git protocol is updated and backward compatibility is removed? We will need to wait until the git serve plugin is updated, possibly rewritten. Third, every repository format has advantages and drawbacks. So far it looks like the git repository format works for most people, what is the need to avoid it? Fourth, we should not re-invent the wheel, people use either bzr or git, and not both for a reason; depending on a theoretical git serve plugin is just asking for trouble. Fifth, if the majority of the GNOME community prefers git, why degrade the git experience with an emulation? It makes much more sense for the bzr minority to emulate bzr experience with bzr-git if so they desire. -- Felipe Contreras ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
On sön, 2009-01-04 at 23:58 +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Luca Ferretti elle@libero.it wrote: Il giorno dom, 04/01/2009 alle 16.11 -0500, Matthias Clasen ha scritto: It seems pretty clear to me that any 'homegrown' system like this is not suitable as a longterm, stable solution for a project the size of gnome. BTW, once switched to DVCS, how much disk space I should have in order to perform a full GNOME Desktop build with jhbuild? A WebKit build from git needs ~740MB :-/ How much does it consume if it's a svn checkout? I heard (don't know if it's true or not) git repo usually takes less diskspace then svn checkout. This page seems to support this claim: A complete git repo is usually smaller than a complete SVN one (according to common knowlege - as in, I didn't run any benchmarks), but one commonly only checks out the /trunk subdirectory in subversion, while git usually checks out the whole project history, including all branches - it could be a substantial amount of data you don't check out with SVN. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
Hi, On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Olav Vitters o...@bkor.dhs.org wrote: Anyway, I'd rather add John Carr to the sysadmin team. I plan to make a proposal to switch GNOME to a DVCS where Git works using Johns suggestion. Then other sysadmins[1] can suggest whatever proposal they want. These proposals can be investigated on merit and then a one can be chosen (chosen as in: go ahead and try if this would work, not go ahead blindly; everything must be tested before a cutover). [1] or whomever. Although I don't see how that would work. While I'm sure John will at least be able to get basic functionality working, and the project has a certain amount of cool geek factor, taking John's proposal as a path forward concerns many in the community for a variety of reasons[*1]. (In fact, I bet such an option would rank lower than any native vcs option had it been included in the survey.) I'd like to help with another path forward, namely native git repositories since I believe that is what most of the community wants. As you said, it isn't clear how it could work for non-sysadmins to come up with clear proposal strategies and implementations. Are there others on the sysadmin team who are willing to work on such a transition? If so, how can I help? Elijah [*1] Reasons I've seen or can think of off the top of my head: * As James H. mentioned on John's blog, you'd likely end up with the intersection of the features of the two version control systems rather than improving things. * John's project does not have a large community behind it and supporting it. In fact, it may end up with a bus factor of 1[*2]. Even if it increases, it doesn't have the kind of large community that, say, git-svn has. In general, it's unsettling to many to adopt a project without a large community behind it. * John's bridge would have to be updated whenever either the bzr or git formats changed (in particular, bzr has changed repository formats several times and even promotes it's ability to seamlessly change repository formats as an advantage), or whenever the network protocols changed (including protocol extensions, such as the git push tell-me-more extension). * It would introduce extra lag between when new features become available, since the bridge would need to be updated for each such change. * There's no guarantee bzr and git will change in ways that will make them remain compatible, so we run the risk of accepting (additional) feature losses as time goes on. It may be a small risk, but we simply don't know and have no way of knowing. * All software has bugs. John's bridge can't be exempt, and particularly as new and not-yet-tested software, it's more of a risk. Will that mean data loss? Loss of features? Inability to perform certain operations? While the bugs are being investigated and fixed, what do maintainers do? Use bzr since it's the official format? I think John's pretty clever and that we would likely avoid most such issues -- but there's no guarantee and this is something that affects developers daily work. * I believe bzr proponents even admit that bzr is still slow for network operations. John's bridge would essentially add another layer on top of that. [*2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_factor ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 10:47 PM, Luca Ferretti elle@libero.it wrote: People using JHBuild to develop one project against latest code or simply testing the whole desktop don't need the full history for all GNOME Desktop modules bzr allows lightweight checkouts [1]. What about git? git-clone has a --depth option [0] to perform shallow clones up to a certain number of revisions. Marko [0] http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-clone.html ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
Il giorno dom, 04/01/2009 alle 16.11 -0500, Matthias Clasen ha scritto: It seems pretty clear to me that any 'homegrown' system like this is not suitable as a longterm, stable solution for a project the size of gnome. BTW, once switched to DVCS, how much disk space I should have in order to perform a full GNOME Desktop build with jhbuild? A WebKit build from git needs ~740MB :-/ People using JHBuild to develop one project against latest code or simply testing the whole desktop don't need the full history for all GNOME Desktop modules bzr allows lightweight checkouts [1]. What about git? [1] http://doc.bazaar-vcs.org/bzr.dev/en/user-guide/index.html#getting-a-lightweight-checkout ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
Hi! First of all, thanks a millions to Behdad and Elijah for taking up this task and congrats for managing to accomplish it so effectively. On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Jason D. Clinton m...@jasonclinton.com wrote: On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 2:43 AM, Karl Lattimer k...@qdh.org.uk wrote: I'd like to remind people of John Carr's recent blog post too, someone mentioned in the survey results actually. JC has been working on bzr with git protocol support, which would fulfil many of the requirements for having a GNOME DVCS. I'd like to point out that--of the 15 people who regularly use git and bzr--git still won. http://www.gnome.org/~shaunm/survey/first-picks-permutations.png It seems to me that a lot of brain power, sysadmin time, and general proliferation of Things To Learn for New People(tm) can be saved if the six people (1.04% of respondents) who ranked bzr above git in that graph can just bite the bullet and admit that git won. Can we please just all move on? My fear is that this effort to keep bzr on life support will cause bzr to show up as a requirement in distcheck for modules maintained by people who are still holding out. So say we all (?) but now is the problem of who will do the move to git? Last I checked, nobody except for Federico volunteered for that and IIRC he is going to do this using his spare time which we all know might not be enough for such a big task. I hope I am wrong about this and we do have enough resources to do the move but in case I am right, I think we should seriously consider John's idea. -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) FSF member#5124 ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Olav Vitters o...@bkor.dhs.org wrote: That isn't a contest. It is a survey. Please don't read more in to my email than I intended. There's no need to get defensive. http://www.gnome.org/~shaunm/survey/first-picks-permutations.png It seems to me that a lot of brain power, sysadmin time, and general I am a sysadmin and disagree with your notion that sysadmin time is somehow saved. I'd rather asses such things myself. Further, sysadmin time is not so important. Thank you for voicing your opinion. just all move on? Further, your explanation is incomplete. As you said, the graph is about people knowing two DVCS systems. I wouldn't say I knew 2. Those 6 are incomplete. I highlighted this statistical analysis because those 6 contain the subset of 4 vocal users demanding that we /also/ support bzr. Now before you reply: we have a clear need for git to work (ranked 1st 50% of the time, etc). But if you say move on, how do you think a switch is made? Magic? Please don't be patronizing. I'm not an idiot. Anyway, I'd rather add John Carr to the sysadmin team. I plan to make a proposal to switch GNOME to a DVCS where Git works using Johns suggestion. Then other sysadmins[1] can suggest whatever proposal they want. These proposals can be investigated on merit and then a one can be chosen (chosen as in: go ahead and try if this would work, not go ahead blindly; everything must be tested before a cutover). John's idea is a good one but it patently loses on technical merit. As stated by John here, git will only be support in a degraded, bastardized form because he chose bzr as the repository format: http://blogs.gnome.org/johncarr/2008/12/11/dvcs-for-gnome/#comment-172 Are we really going to go back to the days of CVS where file moves aren't supported? It strikes me that this very vocal minority--John and Robert Carr, Karl Lattimer and Rob Taylor (whom are four of the six people I mentioned above)--are potentially delaying even longer what we've wanted for more than two years, now. It is from these same people that came the suggestion that git users were a rapid, vocal minority. Why are we letting them derail this process? Moving will not be easy, obviously. But doing it John's way will be, in my technical analysis, an order of magnitude more painful. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 09:40:33AM -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote: On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Olav Vitters o...@bkor.dhs.org wrote: That isn't a contest. It is a survey. Please don't read more in to my email than I intended. There's no need to get defensive. It is not defensive. I don't like changing a survey into 'winning' / contest. http://www.gnome.org/~shaunm/survey/first-picks-permutations.png It seems to me that a lot of brain power, sysadmin time, and general I am a sysadmin and disagree with your notion that sysadmin time is somehow saved. I'd rather asses such things myself. Further, sysadmin time is not so important. Thank you for voicing your opinion. just all move on? Further, your explanation is incomplete. As you said, the graph is about people knowing two DVCS systems. I wouldn't say I knew 2. Those 6 are incomplete. I highlighted this statistical analysis because those 6 contain the subset of 4 vocal users demanding that we /also/ support bzr. Yes, but then said 6. That is incomplete. Now before you reply: we have a clear need for git to work (ranked 1st 50% of the time, etc). But if you say move on, how do you think a switch is made? Magic? Please don't be patronizing. I'm not an idiot. You talk about moving on. I don't see anyone who'd do something like that. My reply is that nothing will happen unless someone does something real (not just another thread). Anyway, I'd rather add John Carr to the sysadmin team. I plan to make a proposal to switch GNOME to a DVCS where Git works using Johns suggestion. Then other sysadmins[1] can suggest whatever proposal they want. These proposals can be investigated on merit and then a one can be chosen (chosen as in: go ahead and try if this would work, not go ahead blindly; everything must be tested before a cutover). John's idea is a good one but it patently loses on technical merit. As stated by John here, git will only be support in a degraded, bastardized form because he chose bzr as the repository format: I read his comment not in the same way. Bzr supports more, Git less. However, I will less John answer... as that will be more concrete. http://blogs.gnome.org/johncarr/2008/12/11/dvcs-for-gnome/#comment-172 Are we really going to go back to the days of CVS where file moves aren't supported? Git doesn't do renames; instead applies heuristics. So this is applied. It strikes me that this very vocal minority--John and Robert Carr, Karl Lattimer and Rob Taylor (whom are four of the six people I mentioned above)--are potentially delaying even longer what we've wanted for more than two years, now. It is from these same people that came the suggestion that git users were a rapid, vocal minority. Why are we letting them derail this process? Again, you're limiting it to 6 people. It is not about the six. This is why I responded before. Instead, you use that number again. Even adding people's names, I don't find this useful. I am not going to talk about 'derailing'.. too emotional word. Moving will not be easy, obviously. But doing it John's way will be, in my technical analysis, an order of magnitude more painful. His way is a solution I expect to be implemented in 2009. To be honest, I really wonder if something else would happen that I'd qualify as a good switch. Yes, might be more difficult to implement. This is what can be discussed. (Along with other migration proposals.) -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 08:10:21AM -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote: This is pretty decent analysis going on here :) I'd like to remind people of John Carr's recent blog post too, someone mentioned in the survey results actually. JC has been working on bzr with git protocol support, which would fulfil many of the requirements for having a GNOME DVCS. I'd like to point out that--of the 15 people who regularly use git and bzr--git still won. That isn't a contest. It is a survey. http://www.gnome.org/~shaunm/survey/first-picks-permutations.png It seems to me that a lot of brain power, sysadmin time, and general I am a sysadmin and disagree with your notion that sysadmin time is somehow saved. I'd rather asses such things myself. Further, sysadmin time is not so important. proliferation of Things To Learn for New People(tm) can be saved if the six people (1.04% of respondents) who ranked bzr above git in that graph can just bite the bullet and admit that git won. Can we please It is a survey. It is NOT about 'winning'. just all move on? Further, your explanation is incomplete. As you said, the graph is about people knowing two DVCS systems. I wouldn't say I knew 2. Those 6 are incomplete. Now before you reply: we have a clear need for git to work (ranked 1st 50% of the time, etc). But if you say move on, how do you think a switch is made? Magic? Anyway, I'd rather add John Carr to the sysadmin team. I plan to make a proposal to switch GNOME to a DVCS where Git works using Johns suggestion. Then other sysadmins[1] can suggest whatever proposal they want. These proposals can be investigated on merit and then a one can be chosen (chosen as in: go ahead and try if this would work, not go ahead blindly; everything must be tested before a cutover). [1] or whomever. Although I don't see how that would work. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:48 AM, John Carr john.c...@unrouted.co.uk wrote: I'm not a complete idiot - if it was going to be a degraded, bastardized form of Git I wouldn't waste my time on it. I suppose I might be an evil genius stalling for Bazaar DS9 to be written (sorry for the very bad joke that probably only i get...). I don't think you're an idiot. I think you're quite smart. Can you please tell us exactly what your words, This is a price that a maintainer pays for using Git and one reason why eventually they might decide to (and have the option to) switch to using Bazaar, mean and to which git features you are planning on this statement applying to encourage people to use bzr? Or do you mean that you taking that sentence back? Also, can you tell us if Canonical is directing you to work on this? ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
Elijah Newren did an initial analysis of the data. His analysis also includes the survey questions and answers. Find it at: http://blogs.gnome.org/newren/2009/01/03/gnome-dvcs-survey-results/ This is pretty decent analysis going on here :) I'd like to remind people of John Carr's recent blog post too, someone mentioned in the survey results actually. JC has been working on bzr with git protocol support, which would fulfil many of the requirements for having a GNOME DVCS. Happy new year everyone :) BR, K ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
2009-01-04 klockan 15:10 skrev Jason D. Clinton: I'd like to point out that--of the 15 people who regularly use git and bzr--git still won. Two remarks. First remark: In the survey I answered that I do not really know much about git, and that I do not use it often. This has a reason, which I haven't seen anyone take into account: the few times I *did* try to use git it was an utterly frustrating experience, and I gave up pretty much immediately. (In contrast, the bzr experience has been a lot better: many good tutorials, better error messages and help from the command line tool, a friendly and active community, developers who actually *do* care about their users, and a clean, extensible design with great plugins floating around.) Second remark: a survey is never about ‘winning’ or ‘losing’. — Wouter signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 17:48 +, John Carr wrote: As bkor has stated, there are lots of Git users so any implementation will support you, and support you well. That is a requirement. So any talk of my idea is not Git vs Bazaar, its talk of one way we can move forward. So i dont consider it to be derailing. When mentioning my idea, lets stick to technical problems with it rather than trying to undermine anyone who has looked at it and thinks it is sound and doable. Can you explain what would happen in the event that a future version of git switches to an repository format that isn't compatible with how you want to store data? David ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) zee...@gmail.com wrote: How about we set-up a task-force of volunteers who would want to help in the move, each volunteer promising at least 3 hours a week? 3 hours is a very small amount of time but I am hoping that we'll be able to gather at least 10 volunteers and together we can do it, even using our spare time. I can commit that much time as long as there's clear delegation of work by--preferably--the sysadmin team. I don't want to sit on a committee that does a lot of deciding and no actual doing. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 3:59 PM, David Zeuthen da...@fubar.dk wrote: On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 17:48 +, John Carr wrote: As bkor has stated, there are lots of Git users so any implementation will support you, and support you well. That is a requirement. So any talk of my idea is not Git vs Bazaar, its talk of one way we can move forward. So i dont consider it to be derailing. When mentioning my idea, lets stick to technical problems with it rather than trying to undermine anyone who has looked at it and thinks it is sound and doable. Can you explain what would happen in the event that a future version of git switches to an repository format that isn't compatible with how you want to store data? It seems pretty clear to me that any 'homegrown' system like this is not suitable as a longterm, stable solution for a project the size of gnome. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
Hi! On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Olav Vitters o...@bkor.dhs.org wrote: On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 09:40:33AM -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote: On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Olav Vitters o...@bkor.dhs.org wrote: Moving will not be easy, obviously. But doing it John's way will be, in my technical analysis, an order of magnitude more painful. His way is a solution I expect to be implemented in 2009. No matter how good that sounds, it's still not a solution, it's a workaround to the problem that we don't have (human) resources to do a move to git. To be honest, I really wonder if something else would happen that I'd qualify as a good switch. How about we set-up a task-force of volunteers who would want to help in the move, each volunteer promising at least 3 hours a week? 3 hours is a very small amount of time but I am hoping that we'll be able to gather at least 10 volunteers and together we can do it, even using our spare time. In any case, after looking at the results of the survey we should only look at hybrid/dual proposal like John's when we don't find any way of moving to git in a reasonable amount of time ( 6 months). -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) FSF member#5124 ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 23:01 +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: How about we set-up a task-force of volunteers who would want to help in the move, each volunteer promising at least 3 hours a week? 3 hours is a very small amount of time but I am hoping that we'll be able to gather at least 10 volunteers and together we can do it, even using our spare time. Would it be worth investigating whether it's worth having the Foundation pay someone to help with this migration (planning, executing, maybe even hosting etc.)? I mean, the eco-system around git is huge (github and others comes to mind) and growing... I'm pretty sure there's plenty git experts around. David ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Luca Ferretti elle@libero.it wrote: bzr allows lightweight checkouts [1]. What about git? Yes, it does. This is not an issue. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Luca Ferretti elle@libero.it wrote: Il giorno dom, 04/01/2009 alle 16.11 -0500, Matthias Clasen ha scritto: It seems pretty clear to me that any 'homegrown' system like this is not suitable as a longterm, stable solution for a project the size of gnome. BTW, once switched to DVCS, how much disk space I should have in order to perform a full GNOME Desktop build with jhbuild? A WebKit build from git needs ~740MB :-/ How much does it consume if it's a svn checkout? I heard (don't know if it's true or not) git repo usually takes less diskspace then svn checkout. This page seems to support this claim: http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/GitSvnComparsion An SVN working directory always contains two copies of each file: one for the user to actually work with and another hidden in .svn/ to aid operations such as status, diff and commit. In contrast a Git working directory requires only one small index file that stores about 100 bytes of data per tracked file. On projects with a large number of files this can be a substantial difference in the disk space required per working copy. -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) FSF member#5124 ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Matthias Clasen schrieb: On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 3:59 PM, David Zeuthen da...@fubar.dk wrote: On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 17:48 +, John Carr wrote: As bkor has stated, there are lots of Git users so any implementation will support you, and support you well. That is a requirement. So any talk of my idea is not Git vs Bazaar, its talk of one way we can move forward. So i dont consider it to be derailing. When mentioning my idea, lets stick to technical problems with it rather than trying to undermine anyone who has looked at it and thinks it is sound and doable. Can you explain what would happen in the event that a future version of git switches to an repository format that isn't compatible with how you want to store data? It seems pretty clear to me that any 'homegrown' system like this is not suitable as a longterm, stable solution for a project the size of gnome. I totally agree. Sooner or later it will become a nightmare to maintain. - -- Greetings, Sebastian Pölsterl -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAklhNewACgkQ1ygZeJ3lLIeGIACglzAktDqy1eQ6VBsOsak41zSk d6cAnAh9IK1acbtnyufeezRL+TQ9Dgvp =N+VG -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:05 PM, David Zeuthen da...@fubar.dk wrote: On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 22:47 +0100, Frederic Peters wrote: Probably just like bzr already went through several repository formats and allowed easy upgrades (just like Subversion repository format changed and it didn't cause any problem for users). I don't think there is a problem here. I don't find this answer compelling. At all. It also doesn't answer the question. It's not unlikely that a future git repo format is fundamentally incompatible with current or future bzr repo formats. And also, data would be available in native git format on lots of computers, and could always be pushed to a vanilla git server. Someone really got to explain exactly why support for multiple repository formats is desirable. To put it straight: the git repository format is not as awesome as people want to believe. First, it only makes it much harder for users to grasp; we're going to end up with some projects have l.g.o pages / README files / mailing list messages saying use bzr to check out this branch and others saying the same for git. That's *not* desirable; it makes it so much harder for new contributors. That's not what John's proposal is about ! John wants to use the bzr format as a repository format, and add a git-serve plugin to bzr to be able to talk to the git clients. In other words, you will be able to access the same data using either bzr, git or hg. Second, it also makes it harder to set up things like jhbuild; either you end up pulling from both git and bzr (from the same underlying repo) or you end up mentally having to translate branch names etc. from one system to another. This is error prone. Third, I could go on with examples, just consider the set of webtools (cgit, annotation, source code searching etc.) we end up with on dvcs.gnome.org; some would be built against bzr, others against git. You get inconsistent branch names, you end up overloading contributors with different concepts and so forth. Finally: We're talking about people's data here. The first rule of holding peoples data is that you don't screw around with it just because. Data integrity matters. Keeping things simple and staying with a *single* kind of hammer (instead of a weird homegrown mutant hammer) helps here. Otherwise we end up with data loss. Frankly, I'm concerned that some people are even considering using such homegrown kludges for holding our GNOME source code. Comparing the size of the Bazaar unit tests with those of Git, I would certainly choose Bazaar for storing my data. Cheers, -- Ali ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 23:20 +0100, Ali Sabil wrote: First, it only makes it much harder for users to grasp; we're going to end up with some projects have l.g.o pages / README files / mailing list messages saying use bzr to check out this branch and others saying the same for git. That's *not* desirable; it makes it so much harder for new contributors. That's not what John's proposal is about ! John wants to use the bzr format as a repository format, and add a git-serve plugin to bzr to be able to talk to the git clients. In other words, you will be able to access the same data using either bzr, git or hg. Uh, but that's exactly how I understood the proposal and I believe that the points I made (that you didn't respond to) still stands: That it's crazy to officially want to support git, bzr and hg *at* the same time *from* the same repo. It's just asking for trouble. Finally: We're talking about people's data here. The first rule of holding peoples data is that you don't screw around with it just because. Data integrity matters. Keeping things simple and staying with a *single* kind of hammer (instead of a weird homegrown mutant hammer) helps here. Otherwise we end up with data loss. Frankly, I'm concerned that some people are even considering using such homegrown kludges for holding our GNOME source code. Comparing the size of the Bazaar unit tests with those of Git, I would certainly choose Bazaar for storing my data. I wasn't commenting on bzr vs git storage format; I'm sure either is fine. I was commenting on the fact that someone proposes to inject something like git-serve in the middle; that's what I think is a kludge. David ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 05:29:02PM -0500, David Zeuthen wrote: Uh, but that's exactly how I understood the proposal and I believe that the points I made (that you didn't respond to) still stands: That it's crazy to officially want to support git, bzr and hg *at* the same time *from* the same repo. It's just asking for trouble. That isn't true. It is Bzr on server, with Git support. Nothing about Hg, nothing about doing partly Git, partly Bzr. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 11:37:05PM +0100, Patryk Zawadzki wrote: On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Olav Vitters o...@bkor.dhs.org wrote: On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 05:29:02PM -0500, David Zeuthen wrote: Uh, but that's exactly how I understood the proposal and I believe that the points I made (that you didn't respond to) still stands: That it's crazy to officially want to support git, bzr and hg *at* the same time *from* the same repo. It's just asking for trouble. That isn't true. It is Bzr on server, with Git support. Nothing about Hg, nothing about doing partly Git, partly Bzr. The potential problem I see is all of the remote branches will use different DVCS that do not support git + hg + bzr. So eventually all Again: No Hg. of us will be forced to use all three tools in order to merge changes from remote branches (unless we expect *all* people to provide *all* changes as patches in which case I don't see the real gain of switching to a distributed tool). Interesting point. I actually saw it as a benefit (store locally using whatever you like). On GNOME server (personal stuff), doesn't matter. Anyway, if you're going against the maintainer who wants to merge, too bad for you IMO. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Olav Vitters o...@bkor.dhs.org wrote: On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 05:29:02PM -0500, David Zeuthen wrote: Uh, but that's exactly how I understood the proposal and I believe that the points I made (that you didn't respond to) still stands: That it's crazy to officially want to support git, bzr and hg *at* the same time *from* the same repo. It's just asking for trouble. That isn't true. It is Bzr on server, with Git support. Nothing about Hg, nothing about doing partly Git, partly Bzr. Sorry for not being clear in my explanations. Basically, as Olav pointed out, it is about having Bazaar on the server, with a git-serve plugin allowing it to fulfill the git client requests as well as the bzr client requests. The following scenarios will be possible: (bzr repo) - (git serve plugin) - network --- (git client) (bzr repo) - (bzr serve) - network --- (bzr client) both bzr and git will operate fully, nothing will be partially supported, since the bazaar repository format is a superset of the git repo format (ie. it stores more metadata). I talked about hg, just to highlight that the solution is quite future proof, because you can certainly apply the same solution to allow hg clients to access the repository. cheers, -- Ali ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 23:01 +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: To be honest, I really wonder if something else would happen that I'd qualify as a good switch. How about we set-up a task-force of volunteers who would want to help in the move, each volunteer promising at least 3 hours a week? 3 hours is a very small amount of time but I am hoping that we'll be able to gather at least 10 volunteers and together we can do it, even using our spare time. This would be a good idea in my opinion. For example an expert in the target DVCS writes up a list of tasks. In such a way that people can execute them one by one. We've done this several times with migrating away from old APIs. I remember for example the GOptionContext and GVFS migrations. Our community-members are smart people: they 'are' qualified to perform such tasks. I think that it wouldn't be bad for our community if multiple people would get involved here. Didn't we need more people in the sysadmin team? And wouldn't this be an opportunity for newcomers to join the team? In any case, after looking at the results of the survey we should only look at hybrid/dual proposal like John's when we don't find any way of moving to git in a reasonable amount of time ( 6 months). The First-Picks-Permutations graphs illustrate that people who know both git and bzr pick git two to one. Also the ranking results show this. We must draw conclusions from that. Even if it's not about winning or losing: it's still about making the right choice. I'm not against the hybrid solution. But it's my opinion that the solution must make sure that the full git experience is guaranteed. ps. I don't think a lot of developers care about the actual format on GNOME servers. If it doesn't interfere with any of git's use-cases. -- Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer home: me at pvanhoof dot be gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org http://pvanhoof.be/blog http://codeminded.be ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
Hi! It seems pretty clear to me that any 'homegrown' system like this is not suitable as a longterm, stable solution for a project the size of gnome. I totally agree here! This is simply a problem of QA. If someone writes a system that can serve all possible (D)VCS clients that's fine but this won't happen tommorow and I will need a huge amount of time to be finished and tested. And in addition it's unlikely that such a system will support more than a common subset of the features of the underlying DVCS system. First, be honest, we need to decide which system to use. I have no preference here, the survey says that most current users prefer git. So it sounds reasonable to go that way if it doesn't has to much problematic impact on the infrastructure side. Second, a VCS system is something that just has to work. I doubt many people really care a lot about what system they use as long as it does not cause any problems for them. People familiar to git will easily learn bzr and the bzr-people will learn git. It's not a good idea to make this decision too important and to do flame-wars. Probably all major DVCS fit our needs and it is more a matter of taste. The survey was a good point to find out the taste of the GNOME developers = we should accept that. Regards Johannes signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 23:58 +0100, Olav Vitters wrote: On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 05:40:18PM -0500, David Zeuthen wrote: Is it *really* so hard to understand that this whole git-serve is a terrible idea? You expect me to reply to this??!? I expected you to reply to the other three mails where I asked the same thing as I did in the mail you replied to. Oh, you chose not to quote that; here it is again: Then what happens when a new version of git with a new feature, incompatible with the git-serve kludge, is released? Then we're screwed, right? And who gets to pay? We do. We're stuck with an old version of git. Us. The very same people who very clearly said git, not bzr. But, alas, you didn't reply to this. You instead hand-waved about something else. I don't think I breached any code of conduct, written or otherwise, by displaying my frustration about how you are evading my question. David ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 12:04:30AM +0100, Johannes Schmid wrote: Hi! It seems pretty clear to me that any 'homegrown' system like this is not suitable as a longterm, stable solution for a project the size of gnome. I totally agree here! This is simply a problem of QA. If someone writes a system that can serve all possible (D)VCS clients that's fine but this That is not what is proposed. won't happen tommorow and I will need a huge amount of time to be finished and tested. And in addition it's unlikely that such a system Proposed solution doesn't take a long time to finish. will support more than a common subset of the features of the underlying DVCS system. [..] Second, a VCS system is something that just has to work. I doubt many people really care a lot about what system they use as long as it does No need to guess, we can look at the survey. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 06:05:30PM -0500, David Zeuthen wrote: On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 23:58 +0100, Olav Vitters wrote: On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 05:40:18PM -0500, David Zeuthen wrote: Is it *really* so hard to understand that this whole git-serve is a terrible idea? You expect me to reply to this??!? I expected you to reply to the other three mails where I asked the same thing as I did in the mail you replied to. Oh, you chose not to quote that; here it is again: I chose not to quote that yes, as this is getting too personal for me. However, I only get more replies back which I consider of terrible quality. Then what happens when a new version of git with a new feature, incompatible with the git-serve kludge, is released? Then we're screwed, right? And who gets to pay? We do. We're stuck with an old version of git. Us. The very same people who very clearly said git, not bzr. But, alas, you didn't reply to this. You instead hand-waved about something else. I don't think I breached any code of conduct, written or otherwise, by displaying my frustration about how you are evading my question. I am not evading. Stop trying to make this personal. I don't care about CoC, I don't like you're talking to me. Anyway, I've already asked John to respond to your point as he is doing the work. I did that before replying to you. This as I thought he would give the best answer. My answer: well, AFAIK, the communication stuff is very generic, so breakage is unlikely. Further, that is why John becomes a sysadmin. Feel free to rewrite my answer as needed. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 00:18 +0100, Olav Vitters wrote: I am not evading. Stop trying to make this personal. I don't care about CoC, I don't like you're talking to me. Please. Stop trying to make this look like it's personal and like I'm assaulting you. Because I didn't. And I resent the accusation. David ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
GNOME DVCS Survey Results
In December I ran a distributed version control system survey for GNOME. From the survey opening page: Thank you for taking the GNOME DVCS Survey. This survey is run on behalf of the GNOME Foundation board of directors, release team, and sysadmin team. The GNOME project is planning a possible move from SVN to a distributed version control system in 2009. The contenders for the system to use are bzr, git, and hg. The aim of the survey is to help us better understand familiarity and preferences of our active contributor base regarding the future version control system for GNOME. The survey results will be informational and will be sent to foundation-list and desktop-devel-list upon completion. GNOME contributors with an SVN account who had an SSH key installed on their account were invited to fill in the survey. A total of 1083 account holders were invited, and 579 filled in the survey. The survey results are now available to the public: http://www.gnome.org/~behdad/dvcs-survey/ Elijah Newren did an initial analysis of the data. His analysis also includes the survey questions and answers. Find it at: http://blogs.gnome.org/newren/2009/01/03/gnome-dvcs-survey-results/ If you analyze the results, please reply to this thread and also leave a comment on my blog post linking to your analysis: http://mces.blogspot.com/2009/01/gnome-dvcs-survey.html Cheers, behdad ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
