From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael G Schwern Subject: Re: Fix git-svn for SVN 1.7 Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 02:54:43 -0700 Message-ID: <5017AB63.6080909@pobox.com> References: <1343468872-72133-1-git-send-email-schwern@pobox.com> <20120730203844.GA23892@dcvr.yhbt.net> <7v1ujsl8ut.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Eric Wong , git@vger.kernel.org, robbat2@gentoo.org, bwalton@artsci.utoronto.ca, jrnieder@gmail.com To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jul 31 11:54:59 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Sw9AG-0008GV-LY for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:54:56 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754742Ab2GaJyw (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Jul 2012 05:54:52 -0400 Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.35]:61082 "EHLO smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754498Ab2GaJyv (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Jul 2012 05:54:51 -0400 Received: from smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DC1F793E; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 05:54:50 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=message-id :date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=s17AFxzFdfFK W/jeHCjwa+M8chM=; b=TlLKR8WuEQtFGJGnrVWVsYnMu/T44teRJ+nUmaqJFI5M Klyojqk1jnyRshXuEjUiIKrMOZ+6E/rhB/07GqHZms9BQwRr8ucjvwIKIRR+tLBd 69dzAfjXiKsP0HmsJcAZgspBWnVSrKu7B+2UP0Kt56+nQAavgNDtuXWIBs8ElK0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=message-id:date :from:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=WtBtDp Y5WxqlSllar6HXIPDCecxXgUdeQfuLAu5ZDTAJBjM13k+E7tgdd5KDUraskpbMjL X/amwQq2T4CrM2Xci5Hbff4dOewnfZclB7oInj35eYs6lDr/S9dHK/+EAXwOL9jV 8DBWsle0yllCn536pOYKuQq8jQA4EYS7UR2Yw= Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38F8D793D; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 05:54:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from windhund.local (unknown [71.236.173.173]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BB67F793A; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 05:54:48 -0400 (EDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 In-Reply-To: <7v1ujsl8ut.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.3 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: C48B4A48-DAF5-11E1-B1B9-01B42E706CDE-02258300!b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: It just doesn't matter. Why are we arguing over which solution will be 4% better two years from now, or if my commits are formatted perfectly, when tremendous amounts of basic work to be done improving git-svn? The code is undocumented, lacking unit tests, difficult to understand and riddled with bugs. Either solution would be a vast improvement. The most important thing is that one of them actually gets done. If both solutions offer a huge improvement, do it the way the person actually writing the code wants to do it. It'll be more enjoyable for them, they'll be more likely to complete the work, and more likely to stick around and code some more.