{"thread":{"id":"36635","subject":"Should git-remote-hg/bzr be part of the core?","startedAt":"2014-05-11T23:34:08Z","lastAt":"2014-05-12T17:13:10Z","messageCount":19,"participants":["Felipe Contreras","Michael Haggerty","Stefan Beller","Dennis Kaarsemaker","David Kastrup","Paolo Ciarrocchi"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"241272","messageId":"537008f06ceb8_8e47492f89f@nysa.notmuch","threadId":"36635","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Should git-remote-hg/bzr be part of the core?","fromName":"Felipe Contreras","fromEmail":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","sentAt":"2014-05-11T23:34:08Z","receivedAt":"2014-05-11T23:34:08Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8358?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nRecently Junio said he was willing to hear the opinion of other people\nregarding the move from contrib to the core[1]. This move is already\nunder way, but suddenly Junio changed his mind.\n\nI have repeatedly asked him to clarify what argument changed his mind,\nbut he hasn't done so. Hopefully he will do that in this thread, but\nI'll jump ahead and assume it's this one by John Keeping[2]:\n\n I do not want to end up in a situation where an update to Git is\n blocked by a distribution because git-remote-hg is not updated to\n support newer versions of Mercurial sufficiently quickly; this\n previously happened in Gentoo due to git-svn and meant that was stuck\n on 1.7.8 until 1.7.13 was released [X].\n\nNow, I feel I addressed this argument at length, specially in this\nthread [3], but I'll try to provide a summary of the strongest arguments\nagainst:\n\n 1) We can make the tests optional, say 't/optional'. So if they don't\n pass, the build of Git is not broken. Additionally, distributions\n might prefer to run test-essential if they don't want to run these\n optional tests.\n \n 2) There's already continuous integration builds[4] to make sure all\n the possible incoming changes in Mercurial are detected early on.\n\n 3) There has been a *single* case where a new Mercurial (3.0) broke\n things. This is due to the fact of how I implemented certain\n functionality due to limitations in Mercurial's API. Mercurial\n authors can be contacted to improve the API and minimize the\n possibility of it happening again.\n\nGiven these arguments, I don't see how moving git-remote-hg to the core\ncould possibly cause any problems, and I don't understand why Junio\nwould think otherwise. Even if such a breakage causes a problem to the\nwhole Git, it would make sense to demote these tools *when* such a\nproblem comes (which I argue it won't). Does it make sense to you that\nyou get thrown in jail for a crime you haven't committed merely because\nsomeone thinks it's likely you will?\n\nGiven the huge amount of work I've put in these remote helpers, and the\nfact that Junio said since day 1 he wanted these in the core[5] (and I\nwas operating under that assumption), I think the demotion back to the\ncontrib area (and therefore out-of-tree) should be made carefully, and\nnot from one day to he next as it happened.\n\nThoughts?\n\n[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/248676\n[2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/248167\n[3] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/248683\n[4] https://travis-ci.org/felipec/git\n[5] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/220277\n\n-- \nFelipe Contreras\n"},{"id":"241277","messageId":"53707b5955034_2b5710592f8aa@nysa.notmuch","threadId":"36635","inReplyTo":"CA+55aFwf9iAKxbvdPV9Up_T709KwBXJWW4g-F829CRQP4YkivQ@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Should git-remote-hg/bzr be part of the core?","fromName":"Felipe Contreras","fromEmail":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","sentAt":"2014-05-12T07:42:17Z","receivedAt":"2014-05-12T07:42:17Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8358?v=4"},"body":"Linus Torvalds wrote:\n> On May 12, 2014 8:35 AM, \"Felipe Contreras\" \n> wrote:\n> >\n> > This move is already\n> > under way, but suddenly Junio changed his mind.\n> \n> That \"suddenly\" wouldn't have anything to do with you being an ass and\n> difficult as usual, arguing about everything and just generally being\n> contrary?\n\nNo, here's where the thread started (A):\nhttp://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/247660/focus=248167\n\nHere I wasn't being an ass:\nhttp://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/247660/focus=248186\n\nHere I wasn't being an ass either:\nhttp://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/247660/focus=248171\n\nNeither here:\nhttp://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/247660/focus=248146\n\nNor here:\nhttp://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/247660/focus=248195\n\nNor here:\nhttp://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/247660/focus=248205\n\nNot an ass here:\nhttp://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/247660/focus=248213\n\nAnd not here either:\nhttp://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/247660/focus=248236\n\nThen Junio *suddenly* changed his mind (B):\nhttp://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/247660/focus=248242\n\nThat is the sequence of mails (A..B) where I responded, and I wasn't an\nass in eithe one of those, so whatever made Junio change his mind\nhappened in that interum, and it wasn't me \"being an ass\".\n\nI bet you made that statement without even botherting to read the\nthread. Go on, read the thread, tell where exactly me \"being an ass\"\nmade Junio change his mind from A, to B.\n\nNah, you wouldn't do that, backing up your claims take time, and you are\nnot willing to spend time on this issue. Even if you were to try to back\nup your claim, you couldn't, becasue it's not true. It's much easier to\njust throw good sounding baseless claims and walk away.\n\n> Felipe, stop this stupid blaming of everybody but yourself.\n\nShow me evidence that this decision was my fault. Junio certainly hasn't\nsaid so. You just have no idea what we are talking about.\n\n> You make absolutely everything be this horrible disaster, you redefine\n> words (\"regression\") to be whatever you need/want them to be to be\n\ngit-remote-hg and git-remote-bzr will likely break in Git v2.0 in certain\nsituations where they wouldn't in v1.9, or v1.8. Call it whatever you\nwant. I call that a regression.\n\n> Seriously. Don't try to make this about Junio somehow being the problem.\n\nSo Junio is perfect. Got it.\n\nIf you don't have the time to actually read the rationale behind Junio's\ndecision, how would you even know he made the right one? You are just\nblindly assuming he is right, and therefore he is not the problem.\n\nWhat if he was wrong? Nah, that's impossible. Right?\n\n-- \nFelipe Contreras\n"},{"id":"241278","messageId":"5370825f709ef_a8114c1304e2@nysa.notmuch","threadId":"36635","inReplyTo":"53707b5955034_2b5710592f8aa@nysa.notmuch","subject":"Re: Should git-remote-hg/bzr be part of the core?","fromName":"Felipe Contreras","fromEmail":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","sentAt":"2014-05-12T08:12:15Z","receivedAt":"2014-05-12T08:12:15Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8358?v=4"},"body":"Felipe Contreras wrote:\n> Linus Torvalds wrote:\n> > Felipe, stop this stupid blaming of everybody but yourself.\n> \n> Show me evidence that this decision was my fault. Junio certainly hasn't\n> said so. You just have no idea what we are talking about.\n\nHere, let me show you.\n\nJunio, can you answer these questions?\n\n 1) What is missing from git-remote-hg/bzr in order for them to be\n considered to be merged to the core?\n\n 2) If a different maintainer steps up, would you consider reconsider\n merging them to the core?\n\n 3) Is there any chance that in the future you would consider them after\n they are more mature, and/or perhaps with a different maintainer?\n\nUnless Junio changes his mind again, the answers to those questions\nshould be clear already to the people following the discussion\n(i.e. not you).\n\n-- \nFelipe Contreras\n"},{"id":"241279","messageId":"53709788.2050201@alum.mit.edu","threadId":"36635","inReplyTo":"537008f06ceb8_8e47492f89f@nysa.notmuch","subject":"Re: Should git-remote-hg/bzr be part of the core?","fromName":"Michael Haggerty","fromEmail":"mhagger@alum.mit.edu","sentAt":"2014-05-12T09:42:32Z","receivedAt":"2014-05-12T09:42:32Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"mhagger@alum.mit.edu","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/119718?v=4"},"body":"On 05/12/2014 01:34 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:\n> Recently Junio said he was willing to hear the opinion of other people\n> regarding the move from contrib to the core[1]. This move is already\n> under way, but suddenly Junio changed his mind.\n\nI agree with Junio. There are good technical arguments for and against\nmoving git-remote-hg out of contrib. Those arguments were discussed at\nlength and I think their weight is on the side of not moving it. But\nthere are two other (in my opinion, stronger) reasons for keeping\ngit-remote-hg out of the core:\n\n1. That subproject has not been maintained to the standards of the Git\nproject; specifically, Git project standards include good commit\nmessages and a willingness to engage with the community on a friendly\nand constructive way and to welcome feedback. Because of your\nconfrontational and nit-picking style, Felipe, many people who have\ntried to help you improve your work are rebuffed and end up giving up\nout of frustration or exhaustion. Because of this, your commits do not\nbenefit from the usual amount of help from the community and therefore\ntheir quality is not as high as required for commits to core Git.\n\n2. Moving git-remote-hg into the core would require even *more* of your\npresence on the Git mailing list. But your very presence is detrimental\nto the rest of the community. You insult and frustrate people who are\ntrying to help you. You attribute malign motivations to people who are\ntrying to be scrupulously fair. You string out enormous threads of\nnit-picking, legalistic argumentativeness that have little to do with\nthe real issues at hand.\n\nThe last big \"Felipe eruption\" in the summer of 2013 caused an enormous\namount of strife, wasted an inordinate amount of time of other community\nmembers, and caused at least one valued contributor to temporarily\nrage-quit the community. That episode only ended when Junio asked you\nto leave the community [1], which, thankfully, you did for a while.\n\nAfter you left, the atmosphere of the mailing list soon returned to its\nusual friendly, collegial, and efficient norm.\n\nRecently you returned to the mailing list. In my opinion everybody on\nthe list, including especially Junio, interacted with you in a very\npolite and businesslike manner. I believe you were given an honest\nchance at a fresh start in the community. I wish you had taken it. The\nGit project could really benefit from the help of a skilled and\nenergetic developer like you!\n\nBut it didn't take long before you started the same theatrics again.\nAnd now again, dealing with your caustic attitude is wasting an order of\nmagnitude more time of the other core developers than your contributions\ncould possibly bring in benefits.\n\nFor me, the conclusion is unfortunate but clear: Felipe Contreras is (by\nfar) a net liability to the Git project. Specifically:\n\n* The Git project will progress faster without you because the other\n contributors will have to waste less time dealing with your antics.\n\n* The Git community will grow faster without you, because your presence\n will not cause existing contributors to withdraw and dissuade new\n contributors from joining.\n\n* The community will be a lot more pleasant without you.\n\nTherefore, I am happy that you have apparently decided to split\ngit-remote-hg into a separate project. I wish you success with the\nproject and I see no reason that it shouldn't continue to be successful.\n But I am glad that I will not have to interact with you anymore.\n\n> [...] Does it make sense to you that\n> you get thrown in jail for a crime you haven't committed merely because\n> someone thinks it's likely you will?\n\nBeing the leader of your own valuable open-source project is nothing\nlike jail. It is an opportunity for you to shine in an environment that\nis more suited to your personality.\n\n> Given the huge amount of work I've put in these remote helpers, and the\n> fact that Junio said since day 1 he wanted these in the core[5] (and I\n> was operating under that assumption), I think the demotion back to the\n> contrib area (and therefore out-of-tree) should be made carefully, and\n> not from one day to he next as it happened.\n\nNone of the work was wasted. git-remote-hg can live on.\n\nThis email is written in sorrow, not in anger. Felipe, you seem to have\nso much potential. If you would put as much effort in conducting social\ninteractions as you do in coding, the whole balance would change\nentirely, and any software project would be happy to have you. With all\nmy heart I truly wish you the best in your future endeavors.\n\nMichael\n\n[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/227750\n\n-- \nMichael Haggerty\nmhagger@alum.mit.edu\nhttp://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/\n"},{"id":"241280","messageId":"CALbm-EZhCOvO+RiFs9A+eb-Qri8_1tphCH1JkVo1iWTc3Qcp8Q@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"36635","inReplyTo":"5370825f709ef_a8114c1304e2@nysa.notmuch","subject":"Re: Should git-remote-hg/bzr be part of the core?","fromName":"Stefan Beller","fromEmail":"stefanbeller@gmail.com","sentAt":"2014-05-12T10:28:35Z","receivedAt":"2014-05-12T10:28:35Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"stefanbeller@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/455868?v=4"},"body":"2014-05-12 10:12 GMT+02:00 Felipe Contreras :\n> Felipe Contreras wrote:\n>> Linus Torvalds wrote:\n>> > Felipe, stop this stupid blaming of everybody but yourself.\n>>\n>> Show me evidence that this decision was my fault. Junio certainly hasn't\n>> said so. You just have no idea what we are talking about.\n>\n> Here, let me show you.\n>\n\nI suspect Linus had a reason not to include the mailing lists\nin the first place and make a huge public discussion,\nbut instead wrote to you personally.\nI guess this is just Linus desire not to waste the time of everybody\nas he learned that these discussions are fruitless sometimes.\n\nJunio C Hamano wrote [in another thread]:\n> I would not mind asking the others, as your discussion tactic seems\n> to be \"repeated voices start sounding like a chorus, and a chorus is\n> project concensus\".\n>\n> Those who are observing from the sideline, please raise your hand if\n> you think the three-line \"Clarification\" Felipe gave us is a fair\n> and accurate clarification. Anybody?\n>\n> I also do not mind seeing hands raised of those who do not agree,\n> even though I already know that they would be a silent majority.\n\nI think Junio is behaving very professional unlike you, Felipe.\nThis includes being polite and very patient.\nAlso this includes weighting different reasons to make\ninformed rational decisions.\n\nGit being a project widely used and people trusting it for their\nwork needs to have high quality and cannot go left today and\ngo right tomorrow, but most of the decisions are done long-term.\n\nFelipe, this may be the reason, why you think nothing changes.\nIt's just slower than you'd like, but with more thoughts weighted.\n\nJunio, I think you're doing an awesome job in maintaining Git\nand leading the community.\n\nStefan\n"},{"id":"241281","messageId":"1399890905.11985.51.camel@seahawk","threadId":"36635","inReplyTo":"53709788.2050201@alum.mit.edu","subject":"Re: Should git-remote-hg/bzr be part of the core?","fromName":"Dennis Kaarsemaker","fromEmail":"dennis@kaarsemaker.net","sentAt":"2014-05-12T10:35:05Z","receivedAt":"2014-05-12T10:35:05Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"dennis@kaarsemaker.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/200649?v=4"},"body":"Michael,\n\nThank you for writing this, I have to see I agree completely. As a\nmostly lurker on this list, I tend to skip any thread Felipe is\nparticipating in, as it tends to quickly spiral out of control.\n\nThis is also the main reason for me not to actively participate a bit\nmore, I prefer reasonable discussions over fighting.\n\nOn ma, 2014-05-12 at 11:42 +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote:\n> On 05/12/2014 01:34 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:\n> > Recently Junio said he was willing to hear the opinion of other people\n> > regarding the move from contrib to the core[1]. This move is already\n> > under way, but suddenly Junio changed his mind.\n> \n> I agree with Junio. There are good technical arguments for and against\n> moving git-remote-hg out of contrib. Those arguments were discussed at\n> length and I think their weight is on the side of not moving it. But\n> there are two other (in my opinion, stronger) reasons for keeping\n> git-remote-hg out of the core:\n> \n> 1. That subproject has not been maintained to the standards of the Git\n> project; specifically, Git project standards include good commit\n> messages and a willingness to engage with the community on a friendly\n> and constructive way and to welcome feedback. Because of your\n> confrontational and nit-picking style, Felipe, many people who have\n> tried to help you improve your work are rebuffed and end up giving up\n> out of frustration or exhaustion. Because of this, your commits do not\n> benefit from the usual amount of help from the community and therefore\n> their quality is not as high as required for commits to core Git.\n> \n> 2. Moving git-remote-hg into the core would require even *more* of your\n> presence on the Git mailing list. But your very presence is detrimental\n> to the rest of the community. You insult and frustrate people who are\n> trying to help you. You attribute malign motivations to people who are\n> trying to be scrupulously fair. You string out enormous threads of\n> nit-picking, legalistic argumentativeness that have little to do with\n> the real issues at hand.\n> \n> The last big \"Felipe eruption\" in the summer of 2013 caused an enormous\n> amount of strife, wasted an inordinate amount of time of other community\n> members, and caused at least one valued contributor to temporarily\n> rage-quit the community. That episode only ended when Junio asked you\n> to leave the community [1], which, thankfully, you did for a while.\n> \n> After you left, the atmosphere of the mailing list soon returned to its\n> usual friendly, collegial, and efficient norm.\n> \n> Recently you returned to the mailing list. In my opinion everybody on\n> the list, including especially Junio, interacted with you in a very\n> polite and businesslike manner. I believe you were given an honest\n> chance at a fresh start in the community. I wish you had taken it. The\n> Git project could really benefit from the help of a skilled and\n> energetic developer like you!\n> \n> But it didn't take long before you started the same theatrics again.\n> And now again, dealing with your caustic attitude is wasting an order of\n> magnitude more time of the other core developers than your contributions\n> could possibly bring in benefits.\n> \n> For me, the conclusion is unfortunate but clear: Felipe Contreras is (by\n> far) a net liability to the Git project. Specifically:\n> \n> * The Git project will progress faster without you because the other\n> contributors will have to waste less time dealing with your antics.\n> \n> * The Git community will grow faster without you, because your presence\n> will not cause existing contributors to withdraw and dissuade new\n> contributors from joining.\n> \n> * The community will be a lot more pleasant without you.\n> \n> Therefore, I am happy that you have apparently decided to split\n> git-remote-hg into a separate project. I wish you success with the\n> project and I see no reason that it shouldn't continue to be successful.\n> But I am glad that I will not have to interact with you anymore.\n> \n> > [...] Does it make sense to you that\n> > you get thrown in jail for a crime you haven't committed merely because\n> > someone thinks it's likely you will?\n> \n> Being the leader of your own valuable open-source project is nothing\n> like jail. It is an opportunity for you to shine in an environment that\n> is more suited to your personality.\n> \n> > Given the huge amount of work I've put in these remote helpers, and the\n> > fact that Junio said since day 1 he wanted these in the core[5] (and I\n> > was operating under that assumption), I think the demotion back to the\n> > contrib area (and therefore out-of-tree) should be made carefully, and\n> > not from one day to he next as it happened.\n> \n> None of the work was wasted. git-remote-hg can live on.\n> \n> This email is written in sorrow, not in anger. Felipe, you seem to have\n> so much potential. If you would put as much effort in conducting social\n> interactions as you do in coding, the whole balance would change\n> entirely, and any software project would be happy to have you. With all\n> my heart I truly wish you the best in your future endeavors.\n> \n> Michael\n> \n> [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/227750\n> \n\n-- \nDennis Kaarsemaker\nhttp://www.kaarsemaker.net\n"},{"id":"241283","messageId":"5370a47bee98c_139611a92fc29@nysa.notmuch","threadId":"36635","inReplyTo":"53709788.2050201@alum.mit.edu","subject":"Re: Should git-remote-hg/bzr be part of the core?","fromName":"Felipe Contreras","fromEmail":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","sentAt":"2014-05-12T10:37:47Z","receivedAt":"2014-05-12T10:37:47Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8358?v=4"},"body":"Michael Haggerty wrote:\n> On 05/12/2014 01:34 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:\n> > Recently Junio said he was willing to hear the opinion of other people\n> > regarding the move from contrib to the core[1]. This move is already\n> > under way, but suddenly Junio changed his mind.\n> \n> I agree with Junio. There are good technical arguments for and against\n> moving git-remote-hg out of contrib.\n\nSaying you agree with Junio is content-free. You have to say *why* you\nagree.\n\nYou mention there are good technical arguments against the graduation of\nthe tools. Surely if you have analyzed those arguments enough to form an\nopinion aligned with Junio's, it should be easy to provide a short\nsummary of those \"good technical arguments\". Can you do that?\n\n> 1. That subproject has not been maintained to the standards of the Git\n> project;\n\nThe quality of the subjproject has not been called into question, stop\ntaiting the discussion with red herrings.\n\n> 2. Moving git-remote-hg into the core would require even *more* of your\n> presence on the Git mailing list.\n\nThat's not true. I sent my patches at my own pace, it doesn't matter if\nthey are in contrib or in the core, I would have kept sending them at\nthe same pace. I have addressed all issues and responded to all\nquestions as if they were already part of the core, which is why they\nhave more quality than other tools already in the core. I only stopped\ndoing that when Junio changed the direction we had since day one.\n\nAlso a red herring.\n\n> > [...] Does it make sense to you that\n> > you get thrown in jail for a crime you haven't committed merely because\n> > someone thinks it's likely you will?\n> \n> Being the leader of your own valuable open-source project is nothing\n> like jail. It is an opportunity for you to shine in an environment that\n> is more suited to your personality.\n\nDon't be ridiculous. There is no out-of-tree tool that could possibly\ncompete in popularity against core tools.\n\nIf you think being out-of-tree is not a negative, lets throw out\ngit-archimport, git-quiltimport, git-p4, git-cvs, git-svn. Let us give\nthem an \"opportunity to shine\".\n\nYou know that those tools do better in the core, and you know\ngit-remote-hg/bzr would do better in the core. Don't act as if you\ndidn't.\n\n> This email is written in sorrow, not in anger. Felipe, you seem to have\n> so much potential. If you would put as much effort in conducting social\n> interactions as you do in coding, the whole balance would change\n> entirely, and any software project would be happy to have you. With all\n> my heart I truly wish you the best in your future endeavors.\n\nLet's see how sincere you are in your sentiment. I'll reply to you\npersonally about the points that I consider to be red herrings and ad\nhominem attacks so we don't taint the dicussion. If you don't reply I'll\nknow you were not being sincere.\n\nCheers.\n\n-- \nFelipe Contreras\n"},{"id":"241284","messageId":"87wqdruurf.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org","threadId":"36635","inReplyTo":"53709788.2050201@alum.mit.edu","subject":"Re: Should git-remote-hg/bzr be part of the core?","fromName":"David Kastrup","fromEmail":"dak@gnu.org","sentAt":"2014-05-12T11:00:20Z","receivedAt":"2014-05-12T11:00:20Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"dak@gnu.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/52141349?v=4"},"body":"Michael Haggerty writes:\n\n> This email is written in sorrow, not in anger. Felipe, you seem to\n> have so much potential. If you would put as much effort in conducting\n> social interactions as you do in coding, [...]\n\nI think that's where you are mistaken. We are not talking about a lack\nof effort here. It is just not spent conducively.\n\n-- \nDavid Kastrup\n"},{"id":"241287","messageId":"5370b91dbd91c_168f13a72fc19@nysa.notmuch","threadId":"36635","inReplyTo":"CALbm-EZhCOvO+RiFs9A+eb-Qri8_1tphCH1JkVo1iWTc3Qcp8Q@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Should git-remote-hg/bzr be part of the core?","fromName":"Felipe Contreras","fromEmail":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","sentAt":"2014-05-12T12:05:49Z","receivedAt":"2014-05-12T12:05:49Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8358?v=4"},"body":"Stefan Beller wrote:\n> 2014-05-12 10:12 GMT+02:00 Felipe Contreras :\n> > Felipe Contreras wrote:\n> >> Linus Torvalds wrote:\n> >> > Felipe, stop this stupid blaming of everybody but yourself.\n> >>\n> >> Show me evidence that this decision was my fault. Junio certainly hasn't\n> >> said so. You just have no idea what we are talking about.\n> >\n> > Here, let me show you.\n> \n> I suspect Linus had a reason not to include the mailing lists\n> in the first place\n\nHuh?\n\nHe did include the mailing lists in the first place[1]. Either something\nis wrong with the mailing list, or somebody is removing the mails.\n\nYou can see the full thread in the git-fc mailing list, and there you\ncan see the git ml is included in all the mails, including the one you\njust sent, where you included the git ml, and it doesn't show in the\narchives.\n\n> and make a huge public discussion, but instead wrote to you\n> personally. I guess this is just Linus desire not to waste the time\n> of everybody as he learned that these discussions are fruitless\n> sometimes.\n\nDon't you agree that including transparent bridges for Mercurial and\nBazaar distributed by default would be benefitial to the project?\n\nIf a discussion could potentially lead to them being included, I'd say\nthat wouldn't be fruitless, but it's *precisely* what our end users\nwould like us to be discussing right now.\n\n> Junio C Hamano wrote [in another thread]:\n> > I would not mind asking the others, as your discussion tactic seems\n> > to be \"repeated voices start sounding like a chorus, and a chorus is\n> > project concensus\".\n> >\n> > Those who are observing from the sideline, please raise your hand if\n> > you think the three-line \"Clarification\" Felipe gave us is a fair\n> > and accurate clarification. Anybody?\n> >\n> > I also do not mind seeing hands raised of those who do not agree,\n> > even though I already know that they would be a silent majority.\n> \n> I think Junio is behaving very professional unlike you, Felipe.\n> This includes being polite and very patient.\n\n> Also this includes weighting different reasons to make\n> informed rational decisions.\n\nWhere is he weighting the different reasons? I've asked him multiple\ntimes to provide those reasons. He mensions there's one, but he doesn't\nsay which one it is.\n\nIf I haven't see this reason, how do you know he is weighing different\nones?\n\n> Git being a project widely used and people trusting it for their\n> work needs to have high quality and cannot go left today and\n> go right tomorrow, but most of the decisions are done long-term.\n\nYes. What is right, and what is left in this example?\n\nPresumably going right would be to include these tools in the core, but\nthat would imply that he plans to go left in the future. But he hasn't\nsaid that. So what makes you think the project would go \"left\" in the\nfuture?\n\n> Felipe, this may be the reason, why you think nothing changes.\n> It's just slower than you'd like, but with more thoughts weighted.\n\nReally? I'll issue the same challenge I've issued to many people.\n\nName a single important change in Git (was one way before, it's another\nway now) that has happened in the last 5 years. And by important I mean\nfor starters users noticed it.\n\nYou won't be able to, because nothing ever changes.\n\n> Junio, I think you're doing an awesome job in maintaining Git\n> and leading the community.\n\nMaintaining, yes, but leading? Leading it where?\n\n[1] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/git-fc/Clhss-fXS2k/9UtiilJ2WQ4J\n\n-- \nFelipe Contreras\n"},{"id":"241286","messageId":"5370B920.2060506@alum.mit.edu","threadId":"36635","inReplyTo":"5370a47bee98c_139611a92fc29@nysa.notmuch","subject":"Re: Should git-remote-hg/bzr be part of the core?","fromName":"Michael Haggerty","fromEmail":"mhagger@alum.mit.edu","sentAt":"2014-05-12T12:05:52Z","receivedAt":"2014-05-12T12:05:52Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"mhagger@alum.mit.edu","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/119718?v=4"},"body":"On 05/12/2014 12:37 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:\n> Michael Haggerty wrote:\n>> On 05/12/2014 01:34 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:\n>>> Recently Junio said he was willing to hear the opinion of other people\n>>> regarding the move from contrib to the core[1]. This move is already\n>>> under way, but suddenly Junio changed his mind.\n>>\n>> I agree with Junio. There are good technical arguments for and against\n>> moving git-remote-hg out of contrib.\n> \n> Saying you agree with Junio is content-free. You have to say *why* you\n> agree.\n\nActually, I don't have to, not even if you tell me to. And anyway, I\nthink the small technical advantages/disadvantages of the possible\ndifferent locations for git-remote-hg are dwarfed by the social\nconsiderations so I think dwelling on technical considerations would\nsidetrack this discussion.\n\n> [...]\n> \n>> 1. That subproject has not been maintained to the standards of the Git\n>> project;\n> \n> The quality of the subjproject has not been called into question, stop\n> taiting the discussion with red herrings.\n\nOn the contrary. I just called the quality of the subproject into\nquestion, and I stated exactly which aspects of its quality I find to be\ninadequate in the text that you omitted from your response:\n\n> [...] specifically, Git project standards include good commit\n> messages and a willingness to engage with the community on a friendly\n> and constructive way and to welcome feedback. Because of your\n> confrontational and nit-picking style, Felipe, many people who have\n> tried to help you improve your work are rebuffed and end up giving up\n> out of frustration or exhaustion. Because of this, your commits do not\n> benefit from the usual amount of help from the community and therefore\n> their quality is not as high as required for commits to core Git.\n\nCommit quality very definitely includes the quality of log messages and\nthe quality of the discussion on the mailing list that can inform people\nworking on those areas of the code in the future.\n\n>> 2. Moving git-remote-hg into the core would require even *more* of your\n>> presence on the Git mailing list.\n> \n> That's not true. I sent my patches at my own pace, it doesn't matter if\n> they are in contrib or in the core, I would have kept sending them at\n> the same pace. I have addressed all issues and responded to all\n> questions as if they were already part of the core, which is why they\n> have more quality than other tools already in the core. I only stopped\n> doing that when Junio changed the direction we had since day one.\n> \n> Also a red herring.\n\nOK, maybe you are technically correct there. There is indeed a\ndifference between > and >=. Let me amend my claim:\n\n2. Moving git-remote-hg into the core would require you to continue your\n presence on the Git mailing list.\n\n>>> [...] Does it make sense to you that\n>>> you get thrown in jail for a crime you haven't committed merely because\n>>> someone thinks it's likely you will?\n>>\n>> Being the leader of your own valuable open-source project is nothing\n>> like jail. It is an opportunity for you to shine in an environment that\n>> is more suited to your personality.\n> \n> Don't be ridiculous. There is no out-of-tree tool that could possibly\n> compete in popularity against core tools.\n\nI never made that claim. I claimed that it was \"nothing like jail\", and\nI stand by that claim. I also think that the Git community is a place\nunsuited to someone with your personality, and that you might truly\nshine more in an independent project.\n\n> If you think being out-of-tree is not a negative, lets throw out\n> git-archimport, git-quiltimport, git-p4, git-cvs, git-svn. Let us give\n> them an \"opportunity to shine\".\n\nIn my opinion, the technical issues for moving importers are not\noverwhelming. Therefore, I don't have a strong opinion about the future\nof these other tools, because their presence in the Git tree is not\ncoupled to the continued presence of a problematic subproject maintainer.\n\n> You know that those tools do better in the core, and you know\n> git-remote-hg/bzr would do better in the core. Don't act as if you\n> didn't.\n\nI maintain cvs2svn/cvs2git outside of the Git core. In fact, one of\ncvs2git's competitors, \"git cvsimport\" *is* in Git core. Nevertheless,\nusers have no problem finding cvs2git, and I think it's safe to say that\nits reputation exceeds that of \"git cvsimport\", even though some people\naccidentally use \"git cvsimport\" out of laziness.\n\nPeople who need to do a conversion from A to B only have to Google for\n\"A B\" and they will find the best conversion tools pretty easily. If\nthe tools are packaged for their OS then they are just an \"apt-get\ninstall\" away from happiness. And given that tools like cvs2git or\ngit-remote-hg, don't even need to be compiled, users can install them\npretty easily themselves.\n\n>> This email is written in sorrow, not in anger. Felipe, you seem to have\n>> so much potential. If you would put as much effort in conducting social\n>> interactions as you do in coding, the whole balance would change\n>> entirely, and any software project would be happy to have you. With all\n>> my heart I truly wish you the best in your future endeavors.\n> \n> Let's see how sincere you are in your sentiment. I'll reply to you\n> personally about the points that I consider to be red herrings and ad\n> hominem attacks so we don't taint the dicussion. If you don't reply I'll\n> know you were not being sincere.\n\nJumping at your every demand is not a prerequisite for being sincere.\n\nMichael\n\n-- \nMichael Haggerty\nmhagger@alum.mit.edu\nhttp://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/\n"},{"id":"241289","messageId":"5370beb4b2483_168f13a72fc57@nysa.notmuch","threadId":"36635","inReplyTo":"5370B920.2060506@alum.mit.edu","subject":"Re: Should git-remote-hg/bzr be part of the core?","fromName":"Felipe Contreras","fromEmail":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","sentAt":"2014-05-12T12:29:40Z","receivedAt":"2014-05-12T12:29:40Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8358?v=4"},"body":"Michael Haggerty wrote:\n> On 05/12/2014 12:37 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:\n> > Michael Haggerty wrote:\n> >> On 05/12/2014 01:34 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:\n> >>> Recently Junio said he was willing to hear the opinion of other people\n> >>> regarding the move from contrib to the core[1]. This move is already\n> >>> under way, but suddenly Junio changed his mind.\n> >>\n> >> I agree with Junio. There are good technical arguments for and against\n> >> moving git-remote-hg out of contrib.\n> > \n> > Saying you agree with Junio is content-free. You have to say *why* you\n> > agree.\n> \n> Actually, I don't have to,\n\nThen there's no point in reading what else you have to say. Whatever\nreasons you might have to agree with Junio are known only to you, thus\nyour \"agreement\" is opaque and meaningless.\n\n> > The quality of the subjproject has not been called into question, stop\n> > taiting the discussion with red herrings.\n> \n> On the contrary. I just called the quality of the subproject into\n> question, and I stated exactly which aspects of its quality I find to be\n> inadequate in the text that you omitted from your response:\n\nI'll wait until somebody else calls into question the quality.\nPreferably somebody who backs up his claims with evidence.\n\n> OK, maybe you are technically correct there. There is indeed a\n> difference between > and >=. Let me amend my claim:\n> \n> 2. Moving git-remote-hg into the core would require you to continue your\n> presence on the Git mailing list.\n\nThat is another red herring. Moving them back to the contrib/ area which\nis what Junio proposed would also require my presence on the list. Is\nthat what you want?\n\nAnd there's the transport helper, and bash completion, and the zsh\ncompletion.\n\n> >>> [...] Does it make sense to you that\n> >>> you get thrown in jail for a crime you haven't committed merely because\n> >>> someone thinks it's likely you will?\n> >>\n> >> Being the leader of your own valuable open-source project is nothing\n> >> like jail. It is an opportunity for you to shine in an environment that\n> >> is more suited to your personality.\n> > \n> > Don't be ridiculous. There is no out-of-tree tool that could possibly\n> > compete in popularity against core tools.\n> \n> I never made that claim. I claimed that it was \"nothing like jail\", and\n> I stand by that claim.\n\nIn the context of the Git project what is the *worst* thing the\nmaintainer can do to a piece of code but delete it? So I think you are\nright, the jail analogy is not correct; it's *execution*.\n\n> > You know that those tools do better in the core, and you know\n> > git-remote-hg/bzr would do better in the core. Don't act as if you\n> > didn't.\n\n> People who need to do a conversion from A to B only have to Google for\n> \"A B\" and they will find the best conversion tools pretty easily.\n\nLet's test that hypothesis:\n\nGoogle: how to conver mercurial to git\n\n * Convert Mercurial project to Git - Stack Overflow (NOPE)\n * Converting a Mercurial repository to Git (YEAP: one among many)\n\nOh, but would you look at that:\n\n This script will actually be shipping with git at some point, which\n gives it some credibility in my book.\n\n * frej/fast-export ยท GitHub (NOPE)\n * Hg-Git Mercurial Plugin (NOPE)\n * Converting Hg repositories to Git (NOPE)\n * Converting from Mercurial to Git - Hivelogic (NOPE)\n * Converting Repositories From Git to Mercurial (NOPE)\n * hg-fast-export: convert Mercurial repositories (NOPE)\n * Converting Mercurial (Hg) to Git Repository on Mac (NOPE)\n * Bitbucket: Converting Hg repositories to Git (NOPE)\n\nSo pretty much hypoethesis failed. That fact that you would even think\npeople would quickly find about git-remote-hg shows exactly how detached\nyou are from the problem.\n\n> If the tools are packaged for their OS then they are just an \"apt-get\n> install\" away from happiness.\n\nOh, they are packaged already (as part of Git). Moving them out-of-tree\nwill make it much more difficult for users to find them, and install\nthem. It will take time for them to be packaged, if it happens at all.\n\n> > Let's see how sincere you are in your sentiment. I'll reply to you\n> > personally about the points that I consider to be red herrings and ad\n> > hominem attacks so we don't taint the dicussion. If you don't reply I'll\n> > know you were not being sincere.\n> \n> Jumping at your every demand is not a prerequisite for being sincere.\n\nI spent a lot of time writing that mail. Not sincere it is then.\n\n-- \nFelipe Contreras"},{"id":"241291","messageId":"5370c32d7ffc7_168f13a72fc6b@nysa.notmuch","threadId":"36635","inReplyTo":"CAHVLzcmqdkf4fMTok+HsXcDOQ5Oz2QdZti3FuzgBUa2T6AWnfA@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Should git-remote-hg/bzr be part of the core?","fromName":"Felipe Contreras","fromEmail":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","sentAt":"2014-05-12T12:48:45Z","receivedAt":"2014-05-12T12:48:45Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8358?v=4"},"body":"Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote:\n> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Michael Haggerty wrote:\n> \n> > Felipe, you seem to have so much potential. If you would put as\n> > much effort in conducting social interactions as you do in coding,\n> > the whole balance would change entirely, and any software project\n> > would be happy to have you. With all my heart I truly wish you the\n> > best in your future endeavors.\n> \n> I really *love* this paragraph. Felipe, you are a brilliant developer\n> and you put a lot of work trying to improve GIT.\n\nThanks.\n\n> While I agree with you the this project is managed in a bit conservative\n> way\n\nOnly a bit? I don't think I've been involed in a more conservative open\nsource project.\n\n> you should really improve how you communicate with other developers,\n> it's such a pity your contributions are some times not included in\n> git.git just because of your attitude.\n\nBut that's a theory. You don't *know* that they would have been included\nhad I used a different attitude.\n\nIn fact, people have contacted me privately saying similar things, and\nI'll give you the same challenge I gave them. If you think a different\nattitude would get my patches in, how about *you* write the commit\nmessages and the discussions for one of my stuck patch series. I'll send\nthe mails as if I had written the content.\n\nIf you are right, the different attitude would make the patches land in\nno time. I still think it's not right for patches to be rejected simply\nbecause of attitude, but I would accept you were right.\n\nBut I think you already know that won't happen, the patches still won't\nget in, not because of the attitude, but because of what they are trying\nto do: change things.\n\nSo if I *know* certain feature would be useful for Git users, I've\nlistened to all the comments, and addressed all the problems, why would\nI give up on those patches? Why would I work on something more boring\nthat won't benefit users as much but would have higher chances of\ngetting in?\n\nI'm doing this on my own free time, I can choose to do whatever I want,\nin whatever way I want, so no, I'll keep working on what I think is\nimportant.\n\nIf you really think the patches can be accepted with a different\nattitude, by all means, let's do the experiment and find out.\n\n-- \nFelipe Contreras\n"},{"id":"241292","messageId":"87mwenuond.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org","threadId":"36635","inReplyTo":"5370beb4b2483_168f13a72fc57@nysa.notmuch","subject":"Re: Should git-remote-hg/bzr be part of the core?","fromName":"David Kastrup","fromEmail":"dak@gnu.org","sentAt":"2014-05-12T13:12:22Z","receivedAt":"2014-05-12T13:12:22Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"dak@gnu.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/52141349?v=4"},"body":"Felipe Contreras writes:\n\n> Michael Haggerty wrote:\n>> On 05/12/2014 12:37 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:\n>> > Michael Haggerty wrote:\n>> >> On 05/12/2014 01:34 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:\n>> >>> Recently Junio said he was willing to hear the opinion of other people\n>> >>> regarding the move from contrib to the core[1]. This move is already\n>> >>> under way, but suddenly Junio changed his mind.\n>> >>\n>> >> I agree with Junio. There are good technical arguments for and against\n>> >> moving git-remote-hg out of contrib.\n>> > \n>> > Saying you agree with Junio is content-free. You have to say *why* you\n>> > agree.\n>> \n>> Actually, I don't have to,\n>\n> Then there's no point in reading what else you have to say. Whatever\n> reasons you might have to agree with Junio are known only to you, thus\n> your \"agreement\" is opaque and meaningless.\n\nLet me spell it out for you. Michael states \"I agree with Junio. There\nare good technical arguments for and against moving git-remote-hg out of\ncontrib.\" Since there are arguments for both sides, the decision boils\ndown to a judgment call. Michael states that he condones the choice\nJunio made, based on the reasoning he gave.\n\nDoes that mean that he examined the choice with equal detail and\nremembers every detail? No. In such a decision, both technical\nexpertise as well as trust based on a past record factor in.\n\n>> > The quality of the subjproject has not been called into question,\n>> > stop taiting the discussion with red herrings.\n>> \n>> On the contrary. I just called the quality of the subproject into\n>> question, and I stated exactly which aspects of its quality I find to\n>> be inadequate in the text that you omitted from your response:\n>\n> I'll wait until somebody else calls into question the quality.\n> Preferably somebody who backs up his claims with evidence.\n\nThe evidence for the toxicity of dealing with subprojects maintained by\nyou is all over the mailing list.\n\nYou are obviously blind to it yourself. Feel free to print out a few\nsalient threads where you argue in favor of your points and ask someone\nyou trust about his impression about how you come across.\n\n>> > Let's see how sincere you are in your sentiment. I'll reply to you\n>> > personally about the points that I consider to be red herrings and\n>> > ad hominem attacks so we don't taint the dicussion. If you don't\n>> > reply I'll know you were not being sincere.\n>> \n>> Jumping at your every demand is not a prerequisite for being sincere.\n>\n> I spent a lot of time writing that mail. Not sincere it is then.\n\nThat kind of exchange is what you should show some of your personal\nfriends and ask them whether it will likely lead to the desired\nunderstanding and ultimately reaction in the reader.\n\nBecause that is what communication is about. Of course, one can try\nbypassing understanding and directly aim for a particular reaction: that\nis being manipulative. You are hardly in danger of being manipulative:\nthat would require a basic understanding of people. So all you can\nreally aim for is understanding: presenting your best case. Forget\nabout \"rhetorics\" and the like: you suck at them, and a technical\naudience is easily annoyed by them even when they are employed well.\n\nAnd if a calm presentation does not lead others to the same conclusion\nthat you would draw, deal with the consequences. Throwing tantrums will\nonly bias people against you when you have the next case to present.\n\n-- \nDavid Kastrup\n"},{"id":"241293","messageId":"5370D015.10300@alum.mit.edu","threadId":"36635","inReplyTo":"5370beb4b2483_168f13a72fc57@nysa.notmuch","subject":"Re: Should git-remote-hg/bzr be part of the core?","fromName":"Michael Haggerty","fromEmail":"mhagger@alum.mit.edu","sentAt":"2014-05-12T13:43:49Z","receivedAt":"2014-05-12T13:43:49Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"mhagger@alum.mit.edu","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/119718?v=4"},"body":"On 05/12/2014 02:29 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:\n> Michael Haggerty wrote:\n> [...]\n>> 2. Moving git-remote-hg into the core would require you to continue your\n>> presence on the Git mailing list.\n> \n> That is another red herring. Moving them back to the contrib/ area which\n> is what Junio proposed would also require my presence on the list. Is\n> that what you want?\n\nNo, actually my preference is that git-remote-hg be separated from the\nGit project altogether, for the reasons that I stated earlier.\n\nMichael\n\n-- \nMichael Haggerty\nmhagger@alum.mit.edu\nhttp://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/\n"},{"id":"241294","messageId":"CAHVLzckDnfFQpZ-u8qdmKqaCNk62b_K_yinfamBPgm1oST1eLQ@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"36635","inReplyTo":"5370c32d7ffc7_168f13a72fc6b@nysa.notmuch","subject":"Re: Should git-remote-hg/bzr be part of the core?","fromName":"Paolo Ciarrocchi","fromEmail":"paolo.ciarrocchi@gmail.com","sentAt":"2014-05-12T13:45:13Z","receivedAt":"2014-05-12T13:45:13Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"paolo.ciarrocchi@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Felipe Contreras\n wrote:\n>\n> Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote:\n> > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Michael Haggerty wrote:\n> >\n\n> > While I agree with you the this project is managed in a bit conservative\n> > way\n>\n> Only a bit? I don't think I've been involed in a more conservative open\n> source project.\n>\n> > you should really improve how you communicate with other developers,\n> > it's such a pity your contributions are some times not included in\n> > git.git just because of your attitude.\n>\n> But that's a theory. You don't *know* that they would have been included\n> had I used a different attitude.\n\nWell, you could at least try to act and communicate differently.\n\n> In fact, people have contacted me privately saying similar things, and\n> I'll give you the same challenge I gave them. If you think a different\n> attitude would get my patches in, how about *you* write the commit\n> messages and the discussions for one of my stuck patch series. I'll send\n> the mails as if I had written the content.\n\nNo, sorry but I'm NOT interested in lying to git community.\n\nCiao,\n-- \nPaolo\n"},{"id":"241296","messageId":"CALbm-EboY+a38uyge1fjYnQuq-Yk2QXG+31tWNap8bX85Hwa4Q@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"36635","inReplyTo":"CAHVLzckDnfFQpZ-u8qdmKqaCNk62b_K_yinfamBPgm1oST1eLQ@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Should git-remote-hg/bzr be part of the core?","fromName":"Stefan Beller","fromEmail":"stefanbeller@gmail.com","sentAt":"2014-05-12T16:13:34Z","receivedAt":"2014-05-12T16:13:34Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"stefanbeller@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/455868?v=4"},"body":"2014-05-12 15:45 GMT+02:00 Paolo Ciarrocchi :\n\n>\n> No, sorry but I'm NOT interested in lying to git community.\n>\n\nIt's not lying. See the \"Helped-By: <>\" lines in git.git commits.\nOften the help was formulating a correct and easy-to-understand\ncommit message.\n"},{"id":"241297","messageId":"5370f968d378c_222d12973081b@nysa.notmuch","threadId":"36635","inReplyTo":"CAHVLzckDnfFQpZ-u8qdmKqaCNk62b_K_yinfamBPgm1oST1eLQ@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Should git-remote-hg/bzr be part of the core?","fromName":"Felipe Contreras","fromEmail":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","sentAt":"2014-05-12T16:40:08Z","receivedAt":"2014-05-12T16:40:08Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8358?v=4"},"body":"Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote:\n> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Felipe Contreras\n> wrote:\n> > Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote:\n> > > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Michael Haggerty wrote:\n> \n> > > While I agree with you the this project is managed in a bit conservative\n> > > way\n> >\n> > Only a bit? I don't think I've been involed in a more conservative open\n> > source project.\n> >\n> > > you should really improve how you communicate with other developers,\n> > > it's such a pity your contributions are some times not included in\n> > > git.git just because of your attitude.\n> >\n> > But that's a theory. You don't *know* that they would have been included\n> > had I used a different attitude.\n> \n> Well, you could at least try to act and communicate differently.\n\nI have, it doesn't make a difference.\n\n> > In fact, people have contacted me privately saying similar things, and\n> > I'll give you the same challenge I gave them. If you think a different\n> > attitude would get my patches in, how about *you* write the commit\n> > messages and the discussions for one of my stuck patch series. I'll send\n> > the mails as if I had written the content.\n> \n> No, sorry but I'm NOT interested in lying to git community.\n\nYeah, that's what I thought. I know what the result of such experiment\nwould be though.\n\n-- \nFelipe Contreras\n"},{"id":"241298","messageId":"537100e8b6682_222d129730829@nysa.notmuch","threadId":"36635","inReplyTo":"87mwenuond.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org","subject":"Re: Should git-remote-hg/bzr be part of the core?","fromName":"Felipe Contreras","fromEmail":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","sentAt":"2014-05-12T17:12:08Z","receivedAt":"2014-05-12T17:12:08Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8358?v=4"},"body":"David Kastrup wrote:\n> Felipe Contreras writes:\n> \n> > Then there's no point in reading what else you have to say. Whatever\n> > reasons you might have to agree with Junio are known only to you, thus\n> > your \"agreement\" is opaque and meaningless.\n> \n> Let me spell it out for you. Michael states \"I agree with Junio. There\n> are good technical arguments for and against moving git-remote-hg out of\n> contrib.\" Since there are arguments for both sides, the decision boils\n> down to a judgment call. Michael states that he condones the choice\n> Junio made, based on the reasoning he gave.\n\nJunio didn't give any reasoning, he deferred by saying \"that reason some\nother guy gave\" and he never explained which reason that was.\n\nWhich is why I'm pretty sure Michael Haggery does not have actually any\nreason.\n\nHe even admitted almost as much by saying he doesn't really care much\nabout these \"small technical issues\", which are not important to him.\n\nSo until Michael explains his reasons, I'll assume he has none. And so\nshould any rational person.\n\n-- \nFelipe Contreras\n"},{"id":"241299","messageId":"5371012674244_222d1297308d1@nysa.notmuch","threadId":"36635","inReplyTo":"5370D015.10300@alum.mit.edu","subject":"Re: Should git-remote-hg/bzr be part of the core?","fromName":"Felipe Contreras","fromEmail":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","sentAt":"2014-05-12T17:13:10Z","receivedAt":"2014-05-12T17:13:10Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8358?v=4"},"body":"Michael Haggerty wrote:\n> On 05/12/2014 02:29 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:\n> > Michael Haggerty wrote:\n> > [...]\n> >> 2. Moving git-remote-hg into the core would require you to continue your\n> >> presence on the Git mailing list.\n> > \n> > That is another red herring. Moving them back to the contrib/ area which\n> > is what Junio proposed would also require my presence on the list. Is\n> > that what you want?\n> \n> No, actually my preference is that git-remote-hg be separated from the\n> Git project altogether, for the reasons that I stated earlier.\n\nExactly. So your point 2. is completely irrelevant to the contrb/ vs.\ncore debate.\n\n-- \nFelipe Contreras\n"}]}