On 10/25/13, Doug Blank <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:For those of us who /don't/ "do this a lot" having the /same/
> It is not a foregone conclusion that we'll ever change to a new tool,
> but for those of us that do this a lot, having a good tool makes a big
tool makes a big difference. 8-)
Maybe, once /everybody/ in the "community" has gone
> But having a good tool doesn't necessarily mean that it won't also be
> good for the rest of the community.
through the same learning curve the git-users have done.
We don't "have to do" anything. If git allows more efficient
> So, I'm with you: if it makes it hard for regular humans to
> contribute, don't do it. But, if it allows new ways that are better,
> then we have to do it!
use of a developer's time then those developers who choose
that can use git right now -- as I understand it.
The point is not the relative ease of use of git vs. svn.
> BTW, I don't find git to be any harder for basic use than svn --- just
> different. In fact the Windows client I have used makes it easier.
The point is whether you want every contributor to be
forced to learn a new way.
It seems to me there were quite a few problems when we
switched over to the new SourceForge repo. It seems to
me they were all unanticipated.
Why not rewrite gramps in Java (or whatever it takes to
be able to run it on a tablet)? I'm sure all of you who know
Java wouldn't have any problems what that.
Why not rewrite gramps in C++ or whatever would make it
blindingly fast? I'm sure all of you who know C++ wouldn't
have any problems with that.
I still vote against git.