From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: State of the repository conversion Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:02:31 +0900 Message-ID: <87k3boi794.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <20140319175124.BCCB3380835@snark.thyrsus.com> <83wqfq82ge.fsf@gnu.org> <20140319185416.GA25588@thyrsus.com> <83siqe80bj.fsf@gnu.org> <87siqdiven.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <83ior98qi4.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1395371095 13788 80.91.229.3 (21 Mar 2014 03:04:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 03:04:55 +0000 (UTC) Cc: esr@thyrsus.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 21 04:05:04 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WQplW-0006kL-ON for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 04:05:02 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50474 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WQplW-0002mY-8W for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 23:05:02 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60586) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WQplP-0002jn-BH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 23:05:00 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WQplK-0001j3-FB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 23:04:55 -0400 Original-Received: from mgmt2.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.224]:58540) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WQplE-00015X-RP; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 23:04:45 -0400 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mgmt2.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CDB5970907; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:02:31 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3B4F21A28DC; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:02:31 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: <83ior98qi4.fsf@gnu.org> X-Mailer: VM undefined under 21.5 (beta34) "kale" 2a0f42961ed4 XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 130.158.97.224 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:170679 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: > > From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" > > Cc: esr@thyrsus.com, > > emacs-devel@gnu.org > > Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 09:08:32 +0900 > > > > About the workflow, Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > > > It is better to draw upon the knowhow and experience of veteran git > > > users among us to identify in advance the preferred workflows, > > > > And the resulting recommendations will be ignored in favor of the > > convenience of the powers that be, as the recommendations for Bazaar > > were. > > I think almost all of the Emacs developers use the workflow described > on the wiki. I know I do. So I'm not sure what your assessment is > based on. The reaction of you (!!), Ken'ichi, and Richard to the version of BzrForEmacsDevs that Karl wrote and I revised (with, IIRC, the enthusiastic approval of Karl). I just don't see any point in spending a lot of time trying to design a great workflow in advance. If you do, go right ahead and do it yourself, and I wish you the good fortune that you're better at channeling the "user to git: just stay out of my way" users than Karl and I were. But I see no point in asking Eric Raymond or git fans to get involved in it. The only point in that is for them to suggest things that work well for them that make no sense to most users until they've had a fair amount of experience. And most users will go: "not now, please!" I suggest that you respect that reaction, and let the appropriate workflow evolve over time.