On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 04:54:24PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2018-05-28 at 14:59 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-03-25 at 10:42 +0200, Michal Novotny wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 12:03 AM, Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 6:57 PM, Ben Rosser <rosser.bjr(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Looking at the dist-git README further reinforces this impression.
The
> > > > first sentence says: "DistGit (Distributed Git) is Git with
additional
> > > > data storage". My initial reaction to that is "so, it is
basically
> > > > just git". My second reaction is "why does additional data
storage
> > > > somehow make git (a distributed version control system) even _more_
> > > > distributed?".
> > > >
> > >
> > > I might be misremembering, but I think Dist-Git was originally short
> > > for "Distribution Git". It was the first attempt to marry a
binary
> > > store to Git, predating git-annex and Git LFS by several years.
> > >
> >
> > Ha, okay, actually, "distribution Git" makes more sense. Thank you!
> >
> > I've changed it in the README.
>
> ref:
https://github.com/release-engineering/dist-git
>
> "DistGit (Distribution Git) is..."
Sorry, pardon the inadvertent thread necro, good old "forgot was
browsing the list with a filter applied"...
Hmm, why do people consider this a problem? People apologize for
resurrecting a thread on occasion, I never understood why.
I see two possibilities: if I deleted the old messages, reusing the
thread has no effect for me except a Reply-to which I don't see, and a
"Re:" in the subject. If I still have the old messages, I don't need
to look for context in case I need it. The first scenario is a meh,
the second is a win.
Zbyszek