From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thomas Lord Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: MAINTAINERS file Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 10:47:27 -0800 Message-ID: <47D18DBF.5020302@emf.net> References: <18375.18663.981150.252393@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <87zlte3848.fsf@ambire.localdomain> <877igipc17.fsf@jbms.ath.cx> <87tzjmnsiz.fsf@jbms.ath.cx> <85hcfi28n2.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1204910136 23622 80.91.229.12 (7 Mar 2008 17:15:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 17:15:36 +0000 (UTC) Cc: eliz@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, jeremy@jeremyms.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Juanma Barranquero Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 07 18:16:03 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JXgAk-0007KL-CE for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 07 Mar 2008 18:15:54 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JXgAC-0000pM-IA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 07 Mar 2008 12:15:20 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JXg4q-00034C-7I for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Mar 2008 12:09:48 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JXg4o-000337-Bp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Mar 2008 12:09:47 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JXg4o-000331-5j for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Mar 2008 12:09:46 -0500 Original-Received: from mail.42inc.com ([205.149.0.25]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (SSL 3.0:RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA1:24) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JXg4d-0002d8-07; Fri, 07 Mar 2008 12:09:35 -0500 X-TFF-CGPSA-Version: 1.5 X-TFF-CGPSA-Filter-42inc: Scanned X-42-Virus-Scanned: by 42 Antivirus -- Found to be clean. Original-Received: from [69.236.65.4] (account lord@emf.net HELO [192.168.1.64]) by mail.42inc.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.13) with ESMTPA id 24793182; Fri, 07 Mar 2008 09:09:21 -0800 User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060808) In-Reply-To: X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:91645 Archived-At: Juanma Barranquero wrote: > IIUC, you're saying "no" to "would we like GNU packages to do that?" > (ie, using Bazaar). I'm agnostic; I'm just not comfortable with the > idea of not taking into account reliability, user interface, > scalability, performance, etc., and blindly assuming that all current > dVCS are more-or-less equivalent. git is quite fast; mercurial has a > nice interface, etc. Using one or another does definitely not offer > the same experience, even if the functionality is very similar. > Probably so but any group of smart people could easily spend a year arguing about it. Not even a year arguing about which system is best but a year arguing just about what "best" means in this context. Over-optimizing a choice like that can be a *huge* resource suck and projects and groups fail all the time because of falling into such traps. RMS' "style" of running GNU, at least as I've seen it over many years, is to try to avoid getting hung up that way. Instead: just pick (or build) a list of free software programs that, at least if you just look at their one-line summaries, should add up to a Complete GNU System. Now you are mostly "done". The next step is to observe this funky heap of programs and ask "Why does this collection fail to function well as a complete system?" and then fix those problems. Then you're done. So, if it seems arbitrary that RMS dubs program X a GNU program and then says "the Emacs project should use X" well, it probably is arbitrary -- but the arbitrariness is part of a larger, pretty sane strategy. X made the list. Hope that it's "good enough" to polish into a component of the complete system. Worst case is to eventually back-track and pick an alternative X'. (GCC, for example, started out just that way. So did the current Emacs. GCC started from a compiler written in pascal that turned out to not be "good enough" and Emacs from another Emacs that didn't have a true lisp in it. Bad choices of X happen but, they tend to get ironed out well so when it comes time to pick an X, there's no great reason to spend too much time deliberating over it. -t (Maybe, though, it is about time for a new task list and "vision sketch" of a complete GNU. For example, an effort could be made to assemble a candidate FSF/GNU distribution with the expectation that the effort will fail, but will yield a list of what work remains to be done.)