On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 22:28 -0600, Mike McGrath wrote: > On 12/11/06, Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Monday 11 December 2006 21:37, Christopher Blizzard wrote: > > > Back burner to what, exactly? What's it waiting on (other than testing > > > and feedback?) > > I honestly didn't get much feedback on the proof of concept, so I'm really > > flying "blind" if you will. Getting feedback means making some people pay > > attention to it and look at it, people that are busy with other things, which > > may or may not be more important. I've been more focused on pungi myself > > rather than putting time into the dist-git proof of concept. While I'd like > > to continue the SCM work, I think a tool to compose our distribution is a bit > > more important for me to work on at this point. This shouldn't stop anybody > > else from working on a proof of concept or enhancing the existing ones. > > I had the same issue with my subversion proof of concept a few months > back. Is it safe or dangerous to assume that lack of interest means > that people just don't care as long as it works? More likely, people are "happy enough" with CVS (warts and all) to not want to invest the time and effort on alternatives. I really feel pretty strongly that if we're going to switch, there needs to be bigger investigation into what work people are trying to do, how they accomplish it and how we can make things _better_ rather than just switching SCMs for nominal amounts of tool improvement. Jeremy _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
