----- Original Message ----- From: "Benjamin Kaduk" <kaduk@xxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 3:26 PM > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 02:41:56AM -0500, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > > Carsten, I think you seriously overstate teh case. > > I agree with this, but not with all of your note. > > > There are costs for using any tool. In some cases, those costs are more > > than paid for by the benefits. In other case, not. > > > > We do have basic revision control and archival recovery available > > already. So the question for using git for developing I-Ds is whether > > the additional complexity is warranted by the additional value. > > > > In some cases, it has been demonstrated to pay off. Clearly, the cost > > is lower if all of the folks working on the document are already using > > git for other reasons. Even without that, when there are multiple > > people actively working on the document, some form of multi-user > > revision and update control is very helpful. Git seems to be a good match. > > > > Many I-Ds have multiple authors, but in practice only one pen-holder. > > Particularly for simpler I-Ds, the benefits of using git to complement > > our eixisting archival version control does not seem to pay off. > > I'm sure that's true for some people (presumably for you, since you wrote > it). But it's not true for me. Using git to complement the existing I-D > archive absolutely makes my life easier, even for documents where I am the > sole author. > > > As I understand it, the current state of play is to allow working groups > > to use git when they deem it helpful. ANd the purpose of the proposed > > I think we need to let individuals and groups make their own decisions > about what and when it is helpful. I have always seen the engineers' way of improving the world, as opposed to most others, as being an approach of understanding the requirements first, creating a design that meets those requirements and then implementing something that executes that design. Here we seem to be saying that answer is Github, all you have to do is ensure that your way of working is amended to fit that answer. Tom Petch > -Ben > > > working group is to write down and agree on common good practices when > > doing that. Pretty hard to argue with that. But to the degree that > > folks make arguments like yours below that seem to be using it as an > > excuse to argue that we should all use git all the time, I will object. > > (To be clear, I do not think that the original proposers were asking for > > that, and I am not objecting to the charter as written. I am asking the > > folks remember that there are MANY different perspectives both in terms > > of tool chains and in terms of the kind of I-Ds that need to be > > generated. NFSv4 is not the same as QUIC is not the same as the draft > > on fragmentation considered harmful.) > > > > Yours, > > Joel > > > > On 1/21/19 2:18 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > > >> Rather weird to read an entire article talking about 'forges' > > >> that doesn’t mention SourceForge, the granddaddy of them all > > > > > > Sourceforge is the worst choice I’m aware of. > > > (Yes, we did projects on Sourceforge when they were the only play in town. > > > We got rid of them when they became criminals [drive-by installers]. > > > Yes, they have new management, but I have no idea why one would go back.) > > > > > >> My take is that, if you're contemplating using git as a necessary > > >> tool to help you develop and maintain an internet-draft, you should > > >> question why you’re writing an internet-draft in the first place... > > > > > > People who do software know that documents are code and need revision control as much as the other code. Git is the consensus way to do collaborative revision control. Why on earth would I use it for everything else and not for my Internet-Drafts? > > > > > > Grüße, Carsten > > > > > > (Git is “not necessary” in the same way that toilets are “not necessary”. > > > Yes, you can do without, but it is so much cleaner with them, so they have become the standard.) > > > > > > > > >
