Re: What's cooking in git.git (May 2014, #02; Fri, 9)

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: May 11, 2014, 17:51 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqk39suru0.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <536d4bd48e3f9_585ea5308b2@nysa.notmuch>

Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:

Show 21 quoted lines

> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> * fc/remote-helpers-hg-bzr-graduation (2014-04-29) 11 commits
>>  - remote-hg: trivial cleanups
>>  - remote-hg: make sure we omit multiple heads
>>  - git-remote-hg: use internal clone's hgrc
>>  - t: remote-hg: split into setup test
>>  - remote-hg: properly detect missing contexts
>>  - remote-{hg,bzr}: store marks only on success
>>  - remote-hg: update to 'public' phase when pushing
>>  - remote-hg: fix parsing of custom committer
>>   (merged to 'next' on 2014-04-22 at fed170a)
>>  + remote-helpers: move tests out of contrib
>>  + remote-helpers: move out of contrib
>>  + remote-helpers: squelch python import exceptions
>> 
>>  As there were announcements for these two to be maintained as
>>  independent third-party projects ($gmane/248561, $gmane/248583),
>
> Clarification: after Junio unlilaterally blocked any further progress
> towards grauduation to the core, which was the intention since the very
> beginning.

After seeing your repeated attempts to spread misinformation, I was planning to totally ignore you, but because "What's cooking" is one of the important project-wide report, I'll respond one last time.

Even though I was originally leaning towards moving them into core (after all, why would I have merged the bottom three commits to 'next' otherwise?), I was later convinced, during the discussion that started with John Keeping's objection [*1*], that I was wrong, and if they moves outside contrib/, the best direction for them to go is not to the core but to become independent third-party plug-in for allow users to pick up the latest without being restricted by our release schedule to ensure no-regressions to the entire system.

At some point I have to decide what would be the best next step, and your counter-arguments did not make much sense to me. The decision is that the best course for these two is either staying in contrib/ if they are not ready, or becoming independent third-party projects if they are.

Is making that decision as the maintainer unilateral?

I would not mind asking the others, as your discussion tactic seems to be "repeated voices start sounding like a chorus, and a chorus is project concensus".

Those who are observing from the sideline, please raise your hand if you think the three-line "Clarification" Felipe gave us is a fair and accurate clarification. Anybody?

I also do not mind seeing hands raised of those who do not agree, even though I already know that they would be a silent majority.

Remember, I intend to make this message the "one last time" one. In the past, any time you made absurd claims by twisting facts and what other people said, I tried to contain the damage to innocent bystanders (who may not know Git and the history of the discussion well enough to make their own judgment) by double-checking facts and correcting you. These days, I still do the same fact-checking, which steals time from the project that would be better spent in other ways, but because I know your counter-arguments will be nitpicking on subissues that do not matter in the larger picture and resulting back-and-force will end up wasting a lot more time without anything to improve the project, I started to apply the "do not feed a troll".

I'll stop wasting time even on fact-checking from now on whenever you say anything. It's not worth the project's time.

[Reference]

*1* http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/248641/focus=248643