Re: Switching to Subversion

[David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>]

Sascha Wilde <wilde@sha-bang.de> writes:

> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> Sascha Wilde <wilde@sha-bang.de> writes:
>>
>>> But on the other hand: Emacs Developers will be using the
>>> development version anyway, so integrating mercurial support shortly
>>> after the release should be sufficient.
>>
>> Disagree.  Shortly after the release, development versions can be
>> expected to be hosed temporarily, and the only Emacs version one
>> can depend on to work reliably is the last released one.
>>
>> If you can't work the SCM from a _stable_ version of Emacs, it is a
>> mess to get back on track.

[...]

> The most important point is: we shouldn't base a decision for or
> against a new SCM on that question, especially not when there _is_
> support for Emacs available and the supporting modes are just not
> part of Emacs yet.

Disagree.

> In fact, at this point of time there is no support for most free
> distributed SCMs (git, bazar, bazar ng, darcs, monotone, mercurial
> ...) in stock Emacs, it would be a big loss if this would be a
> reason to rule out all of them.

Disagree.  We need stability, dependability and a proven track record
for interaction with Emacs.  We don't have the manpower to fix a bad
choice.  A lack of a well-established feasibility for large-scale
projects in combination with Emacs and a number of operating systems
is, in my opinion, a definite reason to rule out any system.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum