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

From: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 26, 2013, 20:17 UTC
Message-ID: <CALkWK0n5ASBvS_swZ3fj11Utt0XKPgpk-V--=gYVaWVi=O2N2A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s2SaKe7F-3H=b3ZBgDPDT+TrVPUBLrXg0XDY7n5ppdS0Q@mail.gmail.com>

Felipe Contreras wrote:

> The importance of users changes all the time. The 15 year old kid in
> Sao Paulo might not be important today, but he might be the single
> most important contributor ten years from now. Hell, he might even
> replace Junio as the maintainer.

Yes, they do.  Did I say that they don't change?

> Where did I twist anything? You can see Linus talk himself:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzKzUBLEzwk

Yes, I watched the talk when you posted the link last time. And yes, I learnt something.

Show 5 quoted lines

> Should we willingly and knowingly neglect some git user-base? No, why
> would you want them to fork? In a way, git's UI has been so bad, that
> some kind-of-forks have happened, that tells us something; the UI
> needs some love, fortunately none of those forks worked, which tells
> us something too; it's not too atrocious.

No, we should never neglect. I believe in including everyone. In fact I take it to an extreme: on many instances, I have pointed out what I want specifically, and asked for a configuration option if it's not necessarily a sane default. Git is a toolkit, and should be loaded with features that even a few users want.

> That's not to say we shouldn't fix the UI, we should, in a way that
> everyone's happy, which is hard, but we will do it, eventually.

On this, I think the way forward is complete-implicit'ness via configuration variables. I recently wrote remote.pushdefault to simply 'git push', and proposed 'git push +ref1 ref2 ref3' to automatically push to the correct pushdefaults (but that proposal was rejected).