Re: planning 2.0?
Karel Gardas <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.version-control.arch.user |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Fri, 21 Apr 2006, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Peter Conrad <[email protected]> writes: > >> You have to balance cost against usefulness. If 8.3 filenames >> were the limit on today's windows, the usefulness of sticking >> to the limit would probably outweigh the cost. > > I'd like to point out that this is clearly a political argument --- I > can't believe that you'd honestly defend such a technical flaw. > > Basically, you seem to imply that Windows support is important nowadays > because Microsoft has (almost) a monopoly; you then deduce that free > software projects should thus abide by the technical rules set by > Microsoft, no matter how bit-rotten they are, no matter what > alternatives exist, etc. > > I personally do not support such arguments. OK, and what about if some free software developers do need to support Windows to fulfill their user needs and they decide to use your RCS for development? If you are taking political view into account, then please also think about more broad picture than just your narrow DRCS view. Cheers, Karel -- Karel Gardas [email protected] ObjectSecurity Ltd. http://www.objectsecurity.com