This is the mail archive of the libc-ports@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the libc-ports project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: onwards to git


Hello!

On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 04:18:51PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday 02 May 2009 08:58:58 Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 11:55:26AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Thursday 30 April 2009 11:00:42 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > > I think it's just going to make more work for the maintainers of each
> > > > individual port.  Mostly, they just keep working.  It'll also be a
> > > > pain for multi-platform distributors like Debian, who will have to do
> > > > the merge anyway.
> > >
> > > it's also a pain for people who like to have 1 source tree and switch
> > > between targets on the fly with only different configure targets.  or for
> > > people who want to quickly search all ports for how they handle some
> > > feature.
> > >
> > > i really dont see any upside to this.  the proposed rebasing aspect is a
> > > complete wash: public git repos should never have their pushed history
> > > rebased, and local rebasing of the entire ports tree vs a single arch is
> > > exactly the same considering the repo is so small.
> >
> > Mike, cool down.
> 
> i dont know what you're talking about
> 
> > I was merely making a proposal.
> 
> and i was pointing out reasons why it was a bad idea.  if you think people 
> disagreeing with you means they're angry or something, then you'll have to 
> rethink how proposals work on mailing lists.

If there are valid technical reasons to prefer another approach over mine
then that is very fine with me, as I said already.

But saying that my proposal ``is a complete wash'' and basing this
statement by putting words into my mouth that I didn't even say (``have
their pushed history rebased'') is not what I call a constructive
discussion.


This will be my last public reply on this matter, please follow up
privately if you must.


Regards,
 Thomas

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]