On Friday, May 17, 2013 02:13:10 PM Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > 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,
I think Barry's point is well taken. Is there a structure/tool set that can accomplish what both of us want? Scott K
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
