From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git wiki Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 15:13:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <20060502232553.GL27689@pasky.or.cz> <7virooj92i.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <4d8e3fd30605030139k33c5a404k54861fdd02c87134@mail.gmail.com> <20060503090007.GM27689@pasky.or.cz> <4d8e3fd30605030213r625ce87fw5cbee554f1c20fbd@mail.gmail.com> <20060503142957.GA9056@spearce.org> <4458C5D7.8010501@op5.se> <7vy7xibzbj.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu May 04 00:13:41 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FbPay-0005es-Rl for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 04 May 2006 00:13:21 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751378AbWECWNR (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 May 2006 18:13:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751380AbWECWNR (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 May 2006 18:13:17 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:52963 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751378AbWECWNQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 May 2006 18:13:16 -0400 Received: from shell0.pdx.osdl.net (fw.osdl.org [65.172.181.6]) by smtp.osdl.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k43MDBtH020528 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Wed, 3 May 2006 15:13:11 -0700 Received: from localhost (shell0.pdx.osdl.net [10.9.0.31]) by shell0.pdx.osdl.net (8.13.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k43MDAgb017907; Wed, 3 May 2006 15:13:11 -0700 To: Junio C Hamano In-Reply-To: <7vy7xibzbj.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 required=5 tests= X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63-osdl_revision__1.74__ X-MIMEDefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.134 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.36 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, 3 May 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > Even if I think the git mailing list itself is very responsive, I think > > the hg people were just more directly and actively involved. For git, they > > had to come to us. > > That is _very_ unfair to me. It is not like git and hg both > submitted proposals to be chosen by them and then we dropped the > ball by not supporting them properly. They have to come to us. Oh, sorry, I didn't mean it in that way. Of _course_ they should have come to us with their issues. So I don't think git was doing anything wrong there, I was just stating it as a neutral fact, rather than any criticism - the hg people were involved (and I think they were pushing it), and the git people weren't, because they never came to us. Not a big deal. I actually think we'll be better off with some competition to keep us on our toes. Linus