On 05/17/2013 01:55 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > You misunderstand.
I don't think i misunderstood at all.
> I'm all for having a good common environment for the team to work on. I
> happen to think you suggested just about the worst one possible. I've tried
> it and I find it much more complex, error prone, and time consuming than what
> we have now.
I understand that this is what you believe, you made that clear. Your
experience with DVCS with full upstream source does not match my
experience with the same tools, but i'm sure our experiences are
different in many ways :)
> So I'm all for improvement, but it should be an improvement. I'd love it if
> we we using a DVCS, but I don't think full source branches are a good idea.
I was offering to do the work to drive a transition. I'm sorry that the
end point of the transition i was proposing is not what you wanted.
Unsurprisingly, I'm not willing to do the work to drive a transition
that ends up somewhere that doesn't make sense to me (though if it was a
transition to git i would happily support someone else doing that work
even if we differed on whether to include upstream source or not). But
it doesn't sound like anyone is willing to do the work to drive a
transition that ends up where you want; or if they are, i haven't heard
any offers.
So PAPT will probably stay with one large centralized VCS that seems to
be no ones' first choice.
ah well,
--dkg
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
