From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Git mirrors Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 10:35:51 +0200 Message-ID: <83vcruwqs8.fsf@gnu.org> References: <8762k095n4.fsf@lifelogs.com> <871uuksdxi.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87lissh32y.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87zkh8e286.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <87d3e4gttq.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87ehyjrhxh.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87botmreqf.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1318408567 11184 80.91.229.12 (12 Oct 2011 08:36:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 08:36:07 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ofv@wanadoo.es, lekktu@gmail.com, miles@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Oct 12 10:36:02 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RDuID-0005SE-9N for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 10:36:01 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53049 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RDuIC-0006v3-H6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 04:36:00 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:46864) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RDuI9-0006uc-Gh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 04:35:58 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RDuI5-0000pD-9c for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 04:35:57 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il ([80.179.55.175]:59950) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RDuI5-0000p4-2u; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 04:35:53 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LSY009002F3A800@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 10:35:51 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.51.78]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LSY009ZX2JO4A10@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 10:35:50 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <87botmreqf.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 80.179.55.175 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:144959 Archived-At: > From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" > Cc: ofv@wanadoo.es, > lekktu@gmail.com, > emacs-devel@gnu.org, > miles@gnu.org > Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 13:55:04 +0900 >=20 > Eli Zaretskii writes: >=20 > > > Because most of the projects in the class you have mentioned p= roduce > > > free *software*, but their political principles are those of t= he open > > > source movement. Emacs is different because it *is* a Free So= ftware > > > project. > >=20 > > I specifically mentioned Gawk and GDB, which are GNU projects as= much > > as Emacs. >=20 > And therefore should follow the same GNU policies as does Emacs. N= o? > So those aren't relevant examples, as the question is "why is the G= NU > policy what it is?" You've changed the subject (and deleted the context that makes that clear). I guess this is no longer a rational/serious discussion. The examples are relevant because these are GNU projects, and so the are NOT different from Emacs. If they provide only git, Emacs can provide just bzr. > > Choosing tools solely on technical capability isn't the policy, = true. > > But that's not really the point, because I was talking about the > > behavior _after_ a decision has been made, not about the decisio= n > > itself. IOW, about "now", and not about "then". >=20 > That's cheating, of course. Are we up to ad hominem yet? > =C3=93scar was talking about both, and specifically asked why such = a > policy exists in the first place. No, =C3=93scar was talking about the past. There's nothing in the pr= esent condition that can justify his views and gripes. He made a decision years ago, and he chooses not to revisit that decision given the changed situation. That's his prerogative. But this discussion is about the situation _now_. So any arguments about what might have been true 2 or 3 years ago, but are no longer true now, are not reall= y relevant. > If you really want these discussions to go away, I think the best > approach is to explain the policy, justify it, put it in the FAQ, a= nd > then shut off future discussion with "off-topic" and a pointer to t= he > FAQ and an appropriate venue for policy discussion such as > gnu.misc.discuss. The policy was explained many times. Richard just explained it again= . Nevertheless, I don't expect these discussions to go away, probably because it's an emotional issue that has very little rational basis. Witness the fact that this time, no one even tried to claim that bzr performance is bad. My conclusion is that technical factors no longe= r matter. It's a religious argument. > > > Promoting an unusable tool merely because it had the GNU label= is most > > > definitely unfriendly competition. > >=20 > > Bzr is not unusable, so this argument is simply false. >=20 > Eli, if you want to make absolutist arguments like that, start writ= ing > in the propositional calculus. If you want to continue in English, > then don't be silly. Are we at ad hominem yet? > With regard to the question of "in this case, how much truth is 'mu= ch > truth'?", see my response to Juanma. I see nothing relevant there to this discussion.