2011/4/26 FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomon...@lab.ntt.co.jp>: > Soren Hansen <so...@linux2go.dk> wrote: >> 2011/4/22 FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomon...@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/ _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
