From: Eric Wong Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 20:01:08 GMT Subject: Re: Fix git-svn for SVN 1.7 Message-ID: <20120731200108.GA14462@dcvr.yhbt.net> In-Reply-To: <5017AB63.6080909@pobox.com> Michael G Schwern wrote: > It just doesn't matter. > > Why are we arguing over which solution will be 4% better two years from now, > or if my commits are formatted perfectly, when tremendous amounts of basic > work to be done improving git-svn? The code is undocumented, lacking unit > tests, difficult to understand and riddled with bugs. Yes it does matter. git-svn has the problems it has because it traditionally had lower review standards than the rest of git. So yes, we're being more careful nowadays about the long-term ramifications of changes. > Either solution would be a vast improvement. The most important thing is that > one of them actually gets done. If both solutions offer a huge improvement, > do it the way the person actually writing the code wants to do it. It'll be > more enjoyable for them, they'll be more likely to complete the work, and more > likely to stick around and code some more. The self-obsoleting nature of git-svn makes it hard for anybody to stick around. Most of the original contributors (including myself) hardly see an SVN repo anymore, so users/contributors forget about it and new ones come along... I want to make sure things stay consistent with the core parts of git, especially if the Perl were to be replaced with a pure C version.