Re: [PATCH 1/9] remote-bzr: trivial cleanups

From: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 26, 2013, 19:39 UTC
Message-ID: <CALkWK0mV-zZ1akdk7rt9HUic7E-gL17sH7dgepw8Bs7hmZ+=LA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s1MHUc_jw5EQviSYWc9phWCYD-FK_gRA-0QYNcLix098w@mail.gmail.com>

Felipe Contreras wrote:

> If you don't understand the reasoning and history behind remote-bzr,
> you might be doing a disservice to everyone by commenting at all.

Felipe, I'm trying to help. If you think my review lacked context, you can write me a paragraph/ link me to an email and I will read it.

It's not reviewers and submitters "attacking" each other. It's helping out other rational people in the community because you care for their reviews. Don't practice exclusivity and label some people as "not eligible to review". That's not a good way to develop.

Show 16 quoted lines

> Bazaar is a dead project, and there are *real* users suffering as we
> speak, bound to eternal SCM torment by evil dictators and political
> non-speak. Even the worst of remote-bzr patches are a thousand times
> better than what you see in bzr code itself.
>
> To give you some perspective, one commit broke a branch in the emacs
> project, and ever since then people are not able to clone that branch.
> This bug has been known for years, and nobody fixes it. Every time
> anybody tries to clone that branch, they need a special sequence of
> commands.
>
> They *need* something like remote-bzr to escape the horrendities of
> bzr, and all you are doing complaining about a sneaked fix is a
> disservice to everyone. Yes, doing such a thing on git.c would not be
> particularly great, but wouldn't be horrific either, fortunately we
> are not doing that!

My God.  This is horror story.

> Answer me, do you use bzr? No? Do you use remote-bzr? No? Then how in
> hell could you possibly have any contextual information to make even a
> guess as to what would be the impact of sneaking such a small fix? You
> can't.

No Felipe, I don't use bzr.