From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Miles Bader Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Gud lord! Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 22:02:02 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <20030608020202.GB21024@gnu.org> References: <16098.1698.415992.223606@nick.uklinux.net> <1055004206.1439.12.camel@lan1> <20030607210527.GA20914@gnu.org> <1055023668.1517.46.camel@lan1> <20030607234736.GA5741@gnu.org> <1055032089.30724.114.camel@lan1> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1055037711 5269 80.91.224.249 (8 Jun 2003 02:01:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 02:01:51 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Sun Jun 08 04:01:50 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19OpVG-0001Mr-00 for ; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 04:01:50 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19OpoZ-0005wk-00 for ; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 04:21:47 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19OpWu-0001xE-2K for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 22:03:32 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19OpVo-0000wb-L7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 22:02:24 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19OpVa-0000YE-An for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 22:02:11 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19OpVS-0000Bb-Gy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 22:02:02 -0400 Original-Received: from miles by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.20) id 19OpVS-0006Jt-Bx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 22:02:02 -0400 Original-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1055032089.30724.114.camel@lan1> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Blat: Foop X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b5 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:14903 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:14903 On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 05:28:04PM -0700, Robert Anderson wrote: > I'd venture that a lot of such discussion as seen on various well-known > discussion sites has often bordered on the inane, mostly from hastily > drawn conclusions about a poorly understood system which does take some > time to understand and appreciate You're entitled to your opinion of course, but I've seen enough, from people that I trust, to feel cautious. Emacs is a fairly mature system, and has muddled along reasonably well with CVS's brain-damage, so there's little need to make any quick decisions. I think that at some point there'll be an obvious movement by a lot of projects to adopt either subversion or arch (and I guess there are actually a few more possible contenders). I'd guess that Emacs will probably switch too at some point, and probably won't be the last -- but I don't think it should be among the first. Please don't take my comments to mean that I dislike arch -- I don't, from what little I know about it, it seems like a very interesting and cool system. In fact, I _like_ the idea of switching to something new and cool because I'm as annoyed by CVS's bogosities as much as anyone (maybe more than most people -- as I use a slow modem link, and I understand that arch handles incremental updates much more efficiently than CVS [sending diffs both ways]), but again, I think this is a place where some conservatism is warranted. [Anyway, RMS is the maintainer, and I suspect he may be even more conservative than me with regard to this issue.] > > (1) the somewhat murky rules/conventions for designating source-controlled > > files, > > They are defined by regexps. I don't think regexps can reasonably be > considered "murky." I think the issue was that this decision was based on names at all. I seem to recall that there was a way to `register' files as well, but that there were issues with that as well. BTW, thank you for posting this, because at the least, it's some impetus to look more closely at the current state of things. -Miles -- 80% of success is just showing up. --Woody Allen