Ben: I would argue that Github provides a huge variety of useful tools to manage Vim that will net a major net positive going forward.
Having a central place for issues and patches that is very familiar to many developers will help to make the barrier of entry for new contributors far lower as well. I don't think that should be discounted at all. It's not to just make users happy. We can't forget either that a MAJOR part of the Vim plugin ecosystem lives on Github already. While I don't have any data to back up this post. the fact that there are a lot of 'driveby' posts referencing github shows that many people actively follow this mailing list, and just because they may not post often, doesn't mean they aren't interested in the future of vim. Saying that git is easier to screw up is a bit misleading. There's a learning curve with any new tool, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's more prone to screw ups. There are right and wrong ways to use any tools. I am just some punk kid who writes javascript all day, and I can easily grasp Git, it's not that hard. I've been maintaining a vim fork on Github for a while. The conversion was fairly simple, so I don't see that as a major drawback either. On Friday, March 27, 2015 at 12:00:05 PM UTC-7, Ben Fritz wrote: > On Friday, March 27, 2015 at 1:21:48 PM UTC-5, James McCoy wrote: > > Why should this be different than any other open source project? If > > you want to contribute, you need to learn the tools that are being > > used. When tools change, then something different needs to be learned. > > It's not up to the project to accommodate every user's individual > > desires. > > > > Because so far the ONLY reason I've seen for moving to git AT ALL is "it > makes the git users happy." Why are the git users more important than > the Mercurial users? > > And generally projects move to obviously better or easier tools, when > there is consensus that the tools are obviously better or easier. > > We're talking about moving to a tool with equivalent features, but that > is harder to learn, easier to screw up, and has more complications to > keep in mind. And we had no consensus for the move. What we had was a > bunch of "hey you should move to github!" drive-by posts, followed up by > responses as to why we shouldn't, and then Bram came out and said "well > I moved us to Github even though I like git better, because most people > wanted that". > > Personally I disagree with the move to git AT ALL. We should have stayed > on the system we were using, and shutting down the hosting provider is > not a good excuse to change systems. It's a good excuse to find a new > hosting provider. It's not even like GitHub has obvious benefits over > BitBucket or anywhere else. In fact it has obvious drawbacks: we are > REQUIRED to change systems if we go there. > > But it looks like reasoned decision making is being overwhelmed by git's > inertia for yet another project. Don't bother setting up a mirror if > it's just a throwaway read-only copy no better than a glorified FTP > server. If I want to I can pull directly from Github with hg-git. > Dealing with that will be easier than dealing with multiple separate > repository locations. -- -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
