Re: Proposal: Subversion Migration

[Richard Frith-Macdonald]

On 2005-10-15 18:26:20 +0000 Alex Perez <aperez@student.santarosa.edu> wrote:

> Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
> > My 'vote', for what it's worth, is to stick with CVS for a while.
> >
> > I don't want to get dragged in to the discussion on this, but ...
> >
> > 1. I don't think that the flaws in CVS are causing people a great deal of 
> > difficulty in practice or holding back GNUstep development.
>
> Of course you don't..you're a core developer, with carte blanche CVS 
> access. 
> Please, for the sake of others who may be interested in contributing, but 
> just not willing to put up with whining about too-large patches, etc, take 
> a 
> step back, put yourself in someone else's shoes, and try to look at where 
> the 
> people who are proposing are coming from, instead of just saying "oh, 
> everything looks fine to me"

Why is it that when I state an opinion you leap back with insults ...
First, by implication, accuse me of not thinking about it.
Then, attribute a different (extreme) opinion to me!

> > 2. I don't see a clear winner for which system we should migrate to... 
> > opinoins are very varied and I don't have the experience myself.
>
> Opinions are just that. Andrew started the discussion because he had a 
> legitimate concern about this as an issue.

I fail to see your point here.
Andrew sent in a reasoned (and polite) email and has had a largely positive 
response  ... but In this thread people have pointed out alternative 
mechanisms to address his concerns without moving from CVS, and have 
generally made a case that there may be better options for a move than 
subversion.

> > So, while I have no objection to someone putting in all the practical work 
> > to do a move (as long as they make it easy for developers like me to make 
> > the change), it seems to me that there is not a lot of urgency, and it 
> > looks like the field of version control systems is in a state of flux, so 
> > a 
> > wait and see approach seems sensible.
>
> Once again, of course it doesn't seem urgent to you. Nobody's claiming it's 
> an URGENT matter.  For that matter, why must you wait for it to be?

Again, your rhetorical style is to invent a nonexistent position to attack.
There is no implication that something must be urgent to be done, there was 
merely a reminder that if something is not urgent, you can afford to spend 
time sorting out the best options.

> Consider 
> it preventative maintenance. Consider it an investment in GNUstep's future. 
> I'm frankly rather frustrated that the core devs are taking such a 
> shortsighted view of the issue, because they have CVS access already. 
> Indifference breeds defeat.

Other people in this thread (not me, I've been an observer) have advanced 
reasoned arguments for and against different options.  I strongly approve of 
that sort of debate.  But once a thread degenerates to flame/flamebait there 
is not usually much point continuting. It may well be that your style of 
writing does your causes more harm than good.

> > By a 'while' I mean something like waiting six months and then revisting 
> > the topic.
>
> What purpose will that serve, other than to defer the inevitable transition 
> from CVS?

Give us a better chance to select the best solution.  Is that not obvious?

> I think we're all in agreement, *in principle* that there are 
> better things out there and they could benefit us from using it. The 
> problem 
> is that some folks are obsessing about the specifics, instead of agreeing 
> on 
> the points that they agree on, and disagreeing on the points with which 
> they 
> disagree.

There I can agree with you.

> The world isn't black and white, even if our logo is.

Please remember that, next time you feel the urge to write polemic.