Open Stack

2011/4/26 FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori at lab.ntt.co.jp>:
> Soren Hansen <soren at linux2go.dk> wrote:
>> 2011/4/22 FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori at lab.ntt.co.jp>:
>> Fair enough. That doesn't change that my name is still on the commit,
>> and there might be a bunch of Acked-By's or Tested-By's on there that
>> suddenly are invalid, because those people never tested the patch in the
>> context where it's now found.
> git doesn't require you to copy the original Acked-by or
> Tested-by. You can't blame git for that.

If a tool makes a bad thing *very* easy and the right much, much more
difficult, I'd say the tool holds a big part of the blame.

>>> I vote for git. It's much eaiser to try to get your changes merged
>>> into a project that uses git.
>> Can you substantiate that somehow? How is it easier?
> Hmm, people already mentioned them.

I don't recall seeing anything that makes that a useful nor accurate
summary. Opinions have been voiced, that's all.

> Why can't we simply use the better tool at this moment?

For the sake of the argument, I'll pretend for second that git is a
better tool. What happens when the bzr developers fix the shortcomins
we've identified here, and bzr becomes the better tool, would you
support a switch back to bzr? If not, why not?

You seem to be ignoring the cost of switching. A cost that you're not
going to pay. I, and the other people working on toooling, are going
to have to pay it, so yes, I'm feeling rather attached to a lot of our
existing choices of tools/technology.

-- 
Soren Hansen        | http://linux2go.dk/
Ubuntu Developer    | http://www.ubuntu.com/
OpenStack Developer | http://www.openstack.org/