archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Felipe Contreras <>
To: Stefan Beller <>,
	Felipe Contreras <>
Cc: "Linus Torvalds" <>,, "Richard Hansen" <>,
	"Jeff King" <>,
	"Git Mailing List" <>,
	"Dusty Phillips" <>,
	"Antoine Pelisse" <>,
	"John Keeping" <>,
	"Christophe Simonis" <>,
	"Torsten Bögershausen" <>
Subject: Re: Should git-remote-hg/bzr be part of the core?
Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 07:05:49 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5370b91dbd91c_168f13a72fc19@nysa.notmuch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

Stefan Beller wrote:
> 2014-05-12 10:12 GMT+02:00 Felipe Contreras <>:
> > Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >> > Felipe, stop this stupid blaming of everybody but yourself.
> >>
> >> Show me evidence that this decision was my fault. Junio certainly hasn't
> >> said so. You just have no idea what we are talking about.
> >
> > Here, let me show you.
> I suspect Linus had a reason not to include the mailing lists
> in the first place


He did include the mailing lists in the first place[1]. Either something
is wrong with the mailing list, or somebody is removing the mails.

You can see the full thread in the git-fc mailing list, and there you
can see the git ml is included in all the mails, including the one you
just sent, where you included the git ml, and it doesn't show in the

> and make a huge public discussion, but instead wrote to you
> personally.  I guess this is just Linus desire not to waste the time
> of everybody as he learned that these discussions are fruitless
> sometimes.

Don't you agree that including transparent bridges for Mercurial and
Bazaar distributed by default would be benefitial to the project?

If a discussion could potentially lead to them being included, I'd say
that wouldn't be fruitless, but it's *precisely* what our end users
would like us to be discussing right now.

> Junio C Hamano wrote [in another thread]:
> > I would not mind asking the others, as your discussion tactic seems
> > to be "repeated voices start sounding like a chorus, and a chorus is
> > project concensus".
> >
> > Those who are observing from the sideline, please raise your hand if
> > you think the three-line "Clarification" Felipe gave us is a fair
> > and accurate clarification.  Anybody?
> >
> > I also do not mind seeing hands raised of those who do not agree,
> > even though I already know that they would be a silent majority.
> I think Junio is behaving very professional unlike you, Felipe.
> This includes being polite and very patient.

> Also this includes weighting different reasons to make
> informed rational decisions.

Where is he weighting the different reasons? I've asked him multiple
times to provide those reasons. He mensions there's one, but he doesn't
say which one it is.

If I haven't see this reason, how do you know he is weighing different

> Git being a project widely used and people trusting it for their
> work needs to have high quality and cannot go left today and
> go right tomorrow, but most of the decisions are done long-term.

Yes. What is right, and what is left in this example?

Presumably going right would be to include these tools in the core, but
that would imply that he plans to go left in the future. But he hasn't
said that. So what makes you think the project would go "left" in the

> Felipe, this may be the reason, why you think nothing changes.
> It's just slower than you'd like, but with more thoughts weighted.

Really? I'll issue the same challenge I've issued to many people.

Name a single important change in Git (was one way before, it's another
way now) that has happened in the last 5 years. And by important I mean
for starters users noticed it.

You won't be able to, because nothing ever changes.

> Junio, I think you're doing an awesome job in maintaining Git
> and leading the community.

Maintaining, yes, but leading? Leading it where?


Felipe Contreras

  reply	other threads:[~2014-05-12 12:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-05-11 23:34 Should git-remote-hg/bzr be part of the core? Felipe Contreras
     [not found] ` <>
2014-05-12  7:42   ` Felipe Contreras
2014-05-12  8:12     ` Felipe Contreras
2014-05-12 10:28       ` Stefan Beller
2014-05-12 12:05         ` Felipe Contreras [this message]
2014-05-12  9:42 ` Michael Haggerty
2014-05-12 10:35   ` Dennis Kaarsemaker
2014-05-12 10:37   ` Felipe Contreras
2014-05-12 12:05     ` Michael Haggerty
2014-05-12 12:29       ` Felipe Contreras
2014-05-12 13:12         ` David Kastrup
2014-05-12 17:12           ` Felipe Contreras
2014-05-12 13:43         ` Michael Haggerty
2014-05-12 17:13           ` Felipe Contreras
2014-05-12 11:00   ` David Kastrup
     [not found]   ` <>
2014-05-12 12:48     ` Felipe Contreras
2014-05-12 13:45       ` Paolo Ciarrocchi
2014-05-12 16:13         ` Stefan Beller
2014-05-12 16:40         ` Felipe Contreras

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=5370b91dbd91c_168f13a72fc19@nysa.notmuch \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).