>>>>> "Gioele" == Gioele Barabucci <gio...@debian.org> writes:
Gioele> On 24/01/25 13:18, Colin Watson wrote:
>> I agree with this. From Otto in another thread:
>>
>> "It is sad to see that in Debian usage of git is stifled by
>> simple things like people not agreeing to use a common branch
>> naming scheme despite there being a proposal for 10+ years now."
>>
>> I use git extensively for all Debian packaging work, but I find
>> it hard to bring myself to care about whether the default branch
>> name is consistent in every package I touch (it isn't, and I
>> haven't been able to observe any way in which it meaningfully
>> affects either me or others, so I'm not going to put energy into
>> it when I could do something else instead). To be told that this
>> means I'm helping to stifle the use of git in Debian is frankly
>> infuriating and insulting.
Gioele> The idea here IMO is that heterogeneity (especially in what
Gioele> accounts as a minor detail) leads to more complex workflows,
Gioele> workflows that cannot be automated, and documentation that
Gioele> is longer or more complex than it should be. This, in turn,
Gioele> stifles the use of Git/Salsa ("oh, too complex, why should I
Gioele> bother?") and that, in turn, stifles the recruitment of new
Gioele> people in Debian. It's not the people it's the workflow.
And reading your message, I do not feel fury.
I did not actually read that paragraph in the original message on my
first read through, but had I done so, I would have felt fury and my
response would have been less measured.
The way Otto phrased things, Colin and I both read judgment of the
people involved, not just judgment of the work flow.
There needs to be respect for people when they disagree. There needs to
be acknowledgment of the disagreement, not dismissing it. I do not feel
respected when I am told that if I just tried to use a certain workflow,
I'd like it.
People often do not feel respected when their trade offs about where to
balance their time are not given consideration.
I feel in some of these discussions like I am perceived as not good
enough if I do not cooperate with all of the different proposals
someone makes. I am asked to entirely adopt someone else's viewpoint.
In many cases I've considered that view and I agree with part of it.
And I feel like I'm challenged to accept the entire thing. If my choice
is all or nothing, my choice is going to be nothing---with a lot of
force behind that nothing.
But if I am given a choice in the middle then I will incrementally adopt
aspects.
In my particular case, I think a lot of these things have value as a
network effect.
The value in one person using the standardized branch name when no one
else does is zero.
The value in 1% of people using the standardized branch name is probably
also zero.
The value in 10% of people using the standardized branch name may be
significant if there are network effects among those people (for example
if they cover much of the membership of a given team).
You cross some threshold and the value starts to increase because other
people start to see that progress is possible and the rate of adoption
starts to increase.
It's not stifling to choose not to be an early adopter. It's not
stifling to actually look at things, conclude that the network effects
have not reached a point where it's worth your time to make a change.
Significant weight does need to be given to taking on some innovation
before it quite reaches the point of real returns: if no one adopts
early, the network effects will never build up.
Looking at the discussion of steps involved in changing a branch name,
I'm not eager to do that.
That looked like way too much work for the current return on investment.
If DEP 14 is accepted, I'll start using its branch layouts for new work.
If the tooling gets better such that I can `salsa rehead-from-to master
debian/latest` in one command then it would cross my personal return on
investment for existing repos after DEP 14 is accepted.
This is how change happens in a project like Debian.
And yes, some day, we may have strong enough community support behind
these proposals that the outliers need to either adopt the new standards
or leave, even if they don't see the value.
Ironically, I'd be less frustrated by a GR today than I am by the
(hopefully unintentially) dismissive language in the current discussion.
I don't mind having to change to be part of a community/team.
I do mind when my position/view is disregarded rather than being
considered and rejected.
I mind a lot when people assume I am stupid or have not done my homework
if I don't agree with them.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
