----- Original Message ----
> From: Mark Mielke <mark_at_mark.mielke.cc>
> To: Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer_at_yahoo.com>
> Cc: Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_red-bean.com>; Hyrum K. Wright <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu>; Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com>; Subversion Dev <dev_at_subversion.apache.org>
> Sent: Sun, January 17, 2010 12:32:32 PM
> Subject: Re: Subversion in 2010
> > 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 elements."
I'm not in the habit of passing judgement on a project's release decisions unless
I'm voting on the release. Supporting renames in merges seems like a challenge
to me, and I certainly don't feel short-changed as a user for not having that in
the current release.
That being said, I will point out that there are a number of people at Apache who
feel that git is a better subversion client than svn is. That's something that
a better working-copy might be able to address, but who knows (other than Greg)
how extensive the changes required might be.
> What about you?
> In terms of guilt not being a motivator - what do you suggest *is* an effective
Leadership by example. I've never seen an open-source community actually do anything
based on the quality of someone's rhetoric. Get involved, make commits, change things.
People will pay attention to your work. IME, open source developers will typically
ignore arguments. Be happy that someone here blogged about your post, because more
than most people casting stones typically will get from a dev team.
> Karl said that "more bugs = more users = probably good". I challenged this. If
> you think I am wrong for challenging this, state your case.
Right/wrong isn't the point. That such discussion is inconsequential to subversion is.
Received on 2010-01-17 18:54:53 CET