Re: [Boost-users] What's happened to Ryppl?

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] What's happened to Ryppl?
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-02 11:36:44

AMDG

On 2/1/2011 11:12 PM, Attila Feher F wrote:
> I am following this discussion, so far silently, for some time now.  I see very good descriptions about distributed version control and the way it enables more flexibility.  And then I see your words Steven.  And I am sorry to say that it makes me fel sad to read your words.  People are kind and helpful, trying to explain to you what they mean, and why they think it is a good idea to use distributed version control.  You get information/experience from people who use it daily and see the advantages.  This, in itself, is a good thing.  Even if git will never be used for Boost.
>
> However when I read your words, I get the feeling that you are not listening.  Not only that, but you talk to people in an abrupt, unfriendly, even adversarial manner.  (Thank you Google for spelling that for me.)
>
> To me it seems that you argue with what you think is an "attack" by "git dogmatics" on SVN and your way of working.  I feel that you are arguing with your preconceptions about what the others think, and during that "heroic fight against irrelevance" you manage to quickly write off arguments, and do that with an attitude.
>
> Since it makes me feel bad (and I already spend too much on antidepressants) I cannot stop myself but to write and tell you, ask you to please change that tone.  Nobody is attacking you.  Nobody says your ways or the Boost ways are faulty.  Nobody accuses you of anything bad.  All that people have said is that (after extensive use of distributed VCS) they find it a more useful tool than centralized VC.  It makes *their* work easier, and it enables *them* (and according to them many others) to contribute with more *ease*.  And how easy something is, is of course, a matter of perception. Something that is not objective.
>
> I find this DVCS vs. CVCS argument very similar to the assembler vs. any-higher-level-language argument of the 80es and then then same with C vs. C++ later etc.
>
> I honestly believe that there is value in the words told about DVCS here.  And I see your point as well.  Why change if it works for now.  I just wish you have made those points in a more polite manner.
>

FWIW, I do understand that a DVCS has
some advantages.  I just think that
it's being blown way out of proportion.

I don't have any particular attachment to
svn, although I object to changing it
on general principles, since switching
will cause a massive disruption for
a little while, no matter how well it's
managed.

In Christ,
Steven Watanabe