<html><head/><body><html><head></head><body>Linus spent a huge amount of time on his version control system after the one he was using was pulled out from under his feet. I should think that anyone who has bzr pulled out from under them will do something similar. <div class="gmail_quote">"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"> <pre style="white-space: pre-wrap; word-wrap:break-word; font-family: sans-serif; margin-top: 0px">David Ingamells writes: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;">On 03/09/12 13:56, Ben Finney wrote:</blockquote> [sic] Ben didn't deserve that. <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;">I don't think you will, though. Bazaar, while it is the preferred VCS <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;">of some highly skilled hackers, is basically a product aimed at people who either can't or won't put thought into their VCS. They'd rather switch than hack </blockquote></blockquote>As a [long term] user of bzr I resent your suggestion that I'm either lazy or stupid.</blockquote> Well, that wasn't the suggestion, especially not in context (which you cut). The suggestion was that people who chose Bazaar because it already does what they want without them or their colleagues spending time thinking about it have made a deliberate, informed choice, based on its vaunted adaptation to their workflow and deliberate discouragement of "dangerous" operations like "rebase" -- ie, reduced need to think about the tool. This implies that "fixing" the contributor agreement is unlikely to unlock vast amounts of time and effort from them. Many of those who chose git also made a deliberate, informed choice, knowing that use of git requires both an investment in learning about the tool and, often, day-to-day thought about workflow. My suggestion is that such people are on average more likely to contribute to git than the average bzr user is to contribute to Bazaar. Canonical's self-serving contributor agreement is mostly irrelevant. (Aside from Ben, I've received only one reply to my request for testimony about the inhibiting effect of the Canonical contributor agreement. I guess that I may as well summarize now. ;-) <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;">I, like many others, I guess, would love to have the time and freedom to contribute to all those projects, but I have a wife and kids to house and feed.</blockquote> That's just your preferred way of phrasing what I wrote. In fact, even Linus has a wife and kids. But he spent a huge amount of time think about and contributing to his VCS, no? He could have just used Subversion (or Arch!) Steve </pre></blockquote></div> -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.</body></html></body></html>