The bias is that the framing of the survey doesn't distinguish between
"better in absolute terms" and "better given that we already have a working
system and that there's a cost for *lots* of people if we switch". I'm
surprised that you can claim that everything's ok even though several people
that
jnol...@gmail.com wrote:
> The fact is is that DVCes *are* an improvement over subversion,
> especially around patch/branching/etc.
I think the core of the problem/discussion is that many (including
me) don't accept this as a fact. It has not been *demonstrated*
to me that they are better, and I
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 15:41, Sean Reifschneider wrote:
> Brett Cannon wrote:
> > It ain't going to be wishy-washy; there will be a very obvious suggestion
> of
>
> I know I haven't said much in this discussion, mostly because I don't
> really care which one we pick. It's just a tool, I'll use
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 16:04, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> No need for a long answer - just explain what the purpose of the survey is,
>
To see what committers think about the various DVCSs and if one happens to
be disliked by a majority of developer when compared to svn as a baseline.
> and why it
The survey isn't biased. You have a value "the same /worse than the status
quo" - wherein the status quo is subversion. If you hate DVCes, you mark it
as "same/worse than the status quo" and we move on.
No one is suggesting we accept *less* functionality than subversion: in
fact we're looki
I don't think that the implicit assumption "that something better may one
day come along" is something which negates action now. That's like
saying "something better than python may come along, so I'll stick with
$X". The fact is is that DVCes *are* an improvement over subversion,
especiall
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Sean Reifschneider wrote:
> But, I did want to say thanks to Brett for sticking his face in this fan.
> :-) It's a task of practically religious-war-proportions, and obviously is
> something there are a lot of opinions and concerns over. Thanks for
> working on t
On the other hand, given how quickly things move in the VC space, we might
as well end up in a situation where we don't need to do anything...
On Feb 27, 2009 11:47 PM, "Georg Brandl" wrote:
Martin v. Löwis schrieb:
>> Could you clarify for me: how binding will your PEP be? ie, will it >> be
No need for a long answer - just explain what the purpose of the survey is,
and why it isn't as biasad as it appears to be. A process where you're
actively discouraging people with a certain opinion from getting involved
isn't much of a process.
On Feb 27, 2009 9:24 PM, "Brett Cannon" wrote:
I
Brett Cannon wrote:
> It ain't going to be wishy-washy; there will be a very obvious suggestion of
I know I haven't said much in this discussion, mostly because I don't
really care which one we pick. It's just a tool, I'll use whatever.
But, I did want to say thanks to Brett for sticking his fac
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 27, 2009, at 6:23 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
However, in this case it should perhaps rather be deferred, since
we cannot
once and forever reject switching to a DVCS.
OTOH, we can't keep discussing forever whether we should switch,
eithe
> However, in this case it should perhaps rather be deferred, since we cannot
> once and forever reject switching to a DVCS.
OTOH, we can't keep discussing forever whether we should switch, either.
If a decision is made not to switch, that decision should hold for a
couple of years - as long as th
Martin v. Löwis schrieb:
>> Could you clarify for me: how binding will your PEP be? ie, will it
>> be closer to a recommendation, or will the final PEP be a final
>> decision about what will (or will not) happen?
>
> If the PEP process is followed (which I recommend it is), then it will
> be a d
On 2009-02-27 20:56, Georg Brandl wrote:
> M.-A. Lemburg schrieb:
>
>> IMHO, those are all feel-good factors which can easily be had by
>> installing a local Subversion repo copy (sync'ed using svnsync (*)),
>> except perhaps regarding merging - but I don't know anything about
>> in what way the D
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 14:13, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> > It may be that people are concerned that if the PEP will be presented
> > as a decision being made, the opportunity for meaninful input will
> > have passed.
>
> That is not the idea of the PEP process. Instead, it works like this:
> an
[Mark Hammond]
It sounds like you want people to hold feedback until you have finished the PEP - which will come complete with a *decision* about
what to switch to, or not to switch at all?
It may be that people are concerned that if the PEP will be presented as a decision being made, the oppo
> It may be that people are concerned that if the PEP will be presented
> as a decision being made, the opportunity for meaninful input will
> have passed.
That is not the idea of the PEP process. Instead, it works like this:
an enhancement is proposed, and people can discuss it and give feedback.
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 13:57, Mark Hammond wrote:
> Brett,
> We really appreciate your work on this PEP, but I wonder if the process
> itself isn't causing some of this friction:
>
> > Can you guys please let me finish the PEP before you start worrying about
> > whether we are going to switch? A
Brett,
We really appreciate your work on this PEP, but I wonder if the process
itself isn't causing some of this friction:
> Can you guys please let me finish the PEP before you start worrying about
> whether we are going to switch? At least give me the chance to make a
> decision on whether
I had a long reply all written out, but instead I decided to discard it so
as to not continue to drag this discussion out. Why? The DVCS PEP is not
even finished yet!
Can you guys please let me finish the PEP before you start worrying about
whether we are going to switch? At least give me the chan
M.-A. Lemburg schrieb:
> IMHO, those are all feel-good factors which can easily be had by
> installing a local Subversion repo copy (sync'ed using svnsync (*)),
> except perhaps regarding merging - but I don't know anything about
> in what way the DVCSes are better than Subversion.
>
> (*) This p
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 2:59 AM, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
...
> $ cp --help
> ...
> Copy SOURCE to DEST, or multiple SOURCE(s) to DIRECTORY.
> ...
> Mandatory arguments to long options are mandatory for short options too.
> -a, --archivesame as -dpR
> ...
> -l, --link
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 4:21 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> Right, which is what I was describing... you copy your local trunk
>> copy and then switch that copy to the new branch. If you use cp -al
>> for this, that's a very fast operation on Unixes and avoids
>> most of the network traffic.
>
> What
23 matches
Mail list logo
