On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 09:52:13PM -0500, Zvezdan Petkovic wrote: >> I don't really want to get into a major revision control system fight >> here; as I said earlier it seems to be clearly Werner's decision. I >> didn't want to leave undefended assertions lying around though! > > I did not use bzr, but based on information I've seen, these are not > "undefended assertions". See, for example,
I think I used the wrong word; where I said "undefended", I meant something like "not responded to". I didn't mean to say that the assertions were pulled out of nowhere, but rather that I disagree with their importance. [I've addressed the performance question in a previous mail. Yes, bzr is slower; no, I don't think that is necessarily an overriding consideration, and personally - as a user, not because somebody pays me to say so - I don't find it to be important for most projects. I won't say any more on the subject as I really didn't mean to get into another instance of the great revision control debate, just to provide a useful link.] > Canonical actively pushes it on open-source developers with the > marketing campaigns at conferences, or this import of groff tree :-). > It certainly is in Canonical's interest to do that. > I'm not convinced it's in my interest, though. Although I mentioned that I work for Canonical for the sake of transparency, I do not work on bzr for them and I am not wearing my employee hat here. If Canonical fired me tomorrow I would carry on using bzr. I'm a bit fed up with the insinuations; would it somehow be better if I quietly used a bzr import for my own work without telling anyone else? I posted it entirely of my own personal volition because I thought others might find it useful. If you don't find it useful, ignore it. Even if the only person who ever uses it is me in order to do a better job with the Debian groff package, it'll have served its purpose. Regards, -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org]
