> I didn't see anybody other than Hiram say the project needs more/better
> coordination, and I certainly don't believe in guilt as a motivator,
> so I have no idea why you keep harping on technical debt as something
> objective and relevant to subversion. Cunningham was referring to shipping
> software with premature design elements in it when he coined the term,
> not at all related to counting up the number of issues a bug tracker.
> Let it go.
I consider a revision control system which ships without support for
merging across renames to be "shipping software with premature design
What about you?
In terms of guilt not being a motivator - what do you suggest *is* an
Karl said that "more bugs = more users = probably good". I challenged
this. If you think I am wrong for challenging this, state your case.
As for the project itself - Subversion development has appeared quite
slow, and even behind. The few resources available are stuck trying to
work around flaws in the architecture (reliable merges, new working
copy, single point of failure as you described). This isn't exactly
healthy. In relation, I think the GIT community might have dozens or
more times the resources available.
If your issue is with any of these, I think some healthy discussion is
If your issue is with me, and you just want to shut me up, you'd do
better to ignore me. I am not trolling. I have to make the decision
between recommending for or against Subversion for our future projects,
and the outcome of these dicussions will play a big part in my decision.
So far, this time around, it's been pretty good.
Received on 2010-01-17 18:33:12 CET