Open Stack

On 04/26/2011 10:35 PM, Soren Hansen wrote:
> I don't recall seeing anything that makes that a useful nor accurate
> summary. Opinions have been voiced, that's all.

Re-read then. What you believe are opinions might well be seen by their
authors as useful and accurate points. I mentioned the fact that
launchpad is really slow to access from China, and sometimes is even
completely inaccessible. That one alone is enough, IMHO. (Please don't
reply again that this will be improved later, or that they are working
on it, too many things share that state, and it just wont happen
tomorrow, and honestly, nobody has a clue on the ETA)

Even if that was only opinions, don't you think they are important too?

>> 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?

One very strong argument is that almost all developers know Git, and not
bzr. That isn't going to change soon.

The introduction of this thread was:

"In an effort to speed up our code development processes, reduce the
friction amongst existing contributors and reduce barriers to entry
for new contributors familiar with the popular git DVCS"

I believe it still stands.

Now, if we see that there's a really better tool that is available, and
that it seems worth switching (and that makes the cost of switching
worth too), why not? But it would have to improves productivity, and be
widely accepted. Many projects switched from CVS to Git or mercurial,
because it was a big step. I don't see bzr as a big step compared to Git
(and in few cases, it's worse).

> 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.

I believe that, in the long run, the cost of learning bzr for each new
comer, is greater than switching the project to Git. Mistakes with the
workflow, like I did when asking you for a review of my patches, are
even greater costs.

On 04/26/2011 10:47 PM, Ed Leafe wrote:
> I, too, prefer git's design, but I also understand the usefulness
> of Launchpad for project management.

There are similar management tools for Git as well. If we don't stick
with GitHub hosting, Gerrit comes to mind...

http://code.google.com/p/gerrit

With Gerrit, we'd keep the code review and centralized thing of
Launchpad, if that is the blocker. But Github has it too (in closed
source), no?

Thomas