Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path]

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Aug 22, 2016, 13:18 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1608221509010.4924@virtualbox>
In-Reply-To: <20160819223547.GB16646@dcvr>

Hi Eric,

On Fri, 19 Aug 2016, Eric Wong wrote:

Show 20 quoted lines

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Eric Wong wrote:
> > > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Old dogs claim the mail list-approach works for them. Nope.
> > > > Doesn't.  Else you would not have written all those custom
> > > > scripts.
> > > 
> > > git and cogito started as a bunch of custom scripts, too.
> > 
> > The difference is that neither git nor cogito were opinionated. Those
> > custom scripts are. They are for one particular workflow, with one
> > particular mail client, with a strong bias to a Unix-y environment.
> > 
> > I work really hard to make Git for Windows as easy and fun to use as
> > possible. I just wish that we were working together to make it as easy
> > and fun to contribute to Git, too.
> 
> I guess this is a fundamental difference between *nix and Windows
> culture.

I do not understand how you get from "I wish to make it fun to contribute to Git" to "there is a fundamental difference between *nix and Windows culture".

> I know Windows users have major performance problems with
> shell scripts;

That's because shell scripting is not native to Windows. I wish Linux had a Powershell, allowing for decent scripting that does not try to smoosh everything into a line-based text format. (Of course, since last week, Linux does have a Powershell.)

Powershell is blazing fast, by the way, and not as ridiculously limited in its expressibility as shell scripting.

But all of this is digressing from the original topic. I do not think this is a productive.

Show 9 quoted lines

> > We do not even have a section on Outlook in our SubmittingPatches.
> > 
> > Okay, if not the most popular mail client, then web mail? Nope, nope,
> > nope. No piping *at all* to external commands from there.
> > 
> > So you basically slam the door shut on the vast majority of email users.
> 
> Users have a choice to use a more scriptable mail client
> (but I guess the OS nudges users towards monolithic tools)

You call that choice. Are you serious?

Show 7 quoted lines

> > That is not leaving much choice to the users in my book.
> 
> Users of alpine, gnus, mutt, sylpheed, thunderbird, kmail,
> roundcube, squirelmail, etc. can all download the source, hack,
> fix and customize things.  It's easier with smaller software,
> of course:  git-send-email does not even require learning
> the build process or separate download.

Now I am getting upset. This is a BS argument. Sure, I can hack the source of these tools.

But why on earth do I *have* to? Why can't we use or create an open contribution process *that works without having to work so hard to be able to contribute*?

So unfortunately this thread has devolved. Which is sad. Because all I wanted is to have a change in Git's submission process that would not exclude *so many* developers. That is really all I care about. Not about tools. Not about open vs proprietary, or standards.

I just want developers who are already familiar with Git, and come up with an improvement to Git itself, to be able to contribute it without having to pull out their hair in despair.

Ciao, Dscho