[lfs-dev] Project contributor names
bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Wed Mar 5 13:42:56 PST 2014
MENGUAL Jean-Philippe wrote:
> Ok I'm not direct contributor to LFS and F can understand that
> translation stuff isn't the priority of the upstream devs. However, I'd
> like to tell you that with git, it became painful to translate
> cross-lfs. We are now unable to release at the same time, synchronously,
> because unable to understand the revisions, branches, and fuzzy commit
> reports. Probably we sohuld learn git, but F've tried for years without
> success. So spending again a while on this would be painful. All the
> more as for BLFS, project very stressed due to its size, any freeze
> would be somewhat a problem (disappoint the contrib, taking delay). For
> translators, it would imply to update our utilities, mandatory to be
> efficient with blfs given the size of the project. Again here, git will
> be painful.
> Finally I think svn is suit to the lfs project and its current workflow.
> But it's only my opinion. It could deal with a new branch such as
> systemd without pain, and translating it will be possible as soon as a
> contrib ask it. And if, someday, systemd becomes trunk, we'll translate
> it (I don't know what's the state of this debate in lfs team because
> writing the bootscripts was a big work for Bruce).
> That's why I'd really ask to be careful switching to git, and please
> help us, because it's a pitty to change what works to something so
> unsafe in project management matter. Unsafe not due to the tool, but to
> the men who use it.
I wouldn't call it unsafe. There are a lot of projects using git. I do
think there is a non-trivial learning curve.
That said, we will very carefully consider the proposal for using git.
We will not change unless we see some specific advantages that out-weigh
More information about the lfs-dev