On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:59:50 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > I don't know if there are any problems with gitg 3.14 that prevent its > upload to unstable. AFAICS all the dependencies should be satisfiable > there (including webkit2gtk, which will migrate to testing before the > freeze). If there are no other problems (e.g. regressions), please > consider uploading 3.14 to sid.
There are serious problems with "gitg" which undertaken a major rewrite after
0.2.7. Unfortunately a lot of functionality was lost (or sacrificed). New
"gitg" contains dramatic regressions in functionality and UI and it is nowhere
near stability and functionality of 0.2.7.
As everyday user of "gitg" I am very disappointed with changes and I consider
3.x release not usable at all. Until 0.3.x matures I will not let it replace
0.2.7.
I specifically uploaded gitg-0.3.x to "experimental" so everyone could try it
and see what I'm talking about... Unfortunately most people just assume that
new version is better and ask for upload...
Gitg's NEWS file contains the following:
Although the most prominent features of gitg are present in this release,
there are still some notable regressions which will be implemented in
subsequent releases and this release should therefore be considered
unstable.
IMHO the above is a dramatic understatement of current Gitg status. Let me
stress it again that by no means Gitg 3.x should be allowed anywhere near
"unstable" yet. Version 0.2.7 works very well with just one minor known bug
while 3.x is not ready and affected by multiple problems and regressions.
Moreover at least one of "gitg" dependencies, "libgit2" is affected by RC-
critical bug.
On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 21:26:00 Andreas Henriksson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 09:34:47PM +1100, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> > tags 766461 + wontfix
> > thanks
>
> Could you please atleast include an explanation on why?
Sorry for delay. Of course I was going to explain my reasons but I was busy so
I've decided to tag first. Lately I had to reply to number of Gitg-related
inquiries so it would be easier to update this bug.
> We're going over the gnome meta packages at the moment and if
> you're not going to ship the 3.14 version how do you think
> we should handle the gnome 3.14 meta-package? Should we depend
> on the old gitg or completely drop gitg?
There is only one version of gitg to depend on. I don't know why would you
drop Gitg from Depends but that's up to you...
> Is there any particular reason you're not cooperating with
> pkg-gnome on the maintenance of gitg?
Wow, that's quite an accusation! I don't recall any conflicts or disagreements
whatsoever. In fact I even packaged from scratch "libgit2-glib" (dependency of
new gitg) for which I have no interest.
I'm not sure what you're implying but in my view this bug do not qualify for
"not cooperating".
If case you meant to ask why "gitg" is not team-maintained... Perhaps it is
historical thing... I'm not a member of "pkg-gnome" and I'm not interested in
GNOME which I never use. Nobody expressed interest to co-maintain "gitg" ever
since I took over it. Maintenance effort is not too high so I was not looking
for co-maintainers. After recent events when people who are not using "gitg"
(hence not aware of its regressions) are pushing it hard for "unstable" I'm
convinced that "gitg" will not benefit from team-maintenance in "pkg-gnome".
--
Regards,
Dmitry Smirnov
GPG key : 4096R/53968D1B
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
