Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Google Summer of Code

[Thomas Lord]

James Blackwell wrote:
> I'm sure that you're happy to shoot this particular messenger whenever the
> opportunity presents itself.
Let's retrace here and examine just what you're doing with
posts like this.

You earlier wrote:

James> The hindrance is that all of the drcs's that I can think
James> of today all have one requirement that devastates DRCS usage
James> in projects with reasonably sized  histories -- doing any 
James> useful work involves downloading all history.

To which I replied:

Tom> I should point out that that particular comment is nonsense.
Tom> It isn't true of Arch.  It isn't true of git.  It probably isn't
Tom> true of other systems.

Now, what I said is true and what you said is false.

Without downloading all of history one can, using Arch, form
a local "vendor branch" (in CVS terms), do updates to that branch,
form a local branch, modify that branch, do smart merging, post
changes....   on an on.

The only history one needs to download for these purposes are the
base revision and merge "pivot points" one actually needs.

As you presumably know.

As far as I know, similar truths hold for git.

As you presumably know.

Now, I don't know about this "shoot the messenger" spew of yours but
I do know that the kind of obfuscation you are engaging in was, yes,
quite typical of stuff emerging from Canonical when there were more of
you participating.

I was, indeed, quite overwhelmed by the impossible choice between
defending myself day-to-day against such crap and working (sans budget,
even for the most basic standards of USian middle-class living) for months
to try to leapfrog the several of you.   It has been kind of me to pin 
the blame on
your employer rather than individuals, from your perspective -- don't look a
gift horse in the mouth.
> My source for this is the approximately 500 public full history imports
> that were done in first GnuArch, then Bazaar, then Bazaar-NG. The projects
> had a pretty wide range and covered about any combination of working tree
> size and history size that you could imagine.  The results for full
> history imports were both bad enough that neither are really practical.
>
>   
As near as I can tell, you folks at Canonical went off and did something 
that
made no sense and got bad results.  Well, congratulations on that.


> Facts are less of a factor to Adoption then perception. 
This does, suddenly, appear to be your religion.


"liar, liar, pants on fire", -- there.  feeling "shot" enough?
-t