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: Moving to bzr? Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:57:49 +0900 Message-ID: <87r62wf6g2.fsf@xemacs.org> References: <87mye6xnsr.fsf@xemacs.org> <87y6xpvyz6.fsf@xemacs.org> <87zli4jcc4.fsf@workhorse.earlhome> <3f14737c0901211533p87ee668wce75d76143c40893@mail.gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1232589482 22964 80.91.229.12 (22 Jan 2009 01:58:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 01:58:02 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Juanma Barranquero , Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org, Stefan Monnier , Jason Earl To: John Yates Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 22 02:59:14 2009 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 1LPoqg-0001Zg-0R for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 02:59:14 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52145 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LPopO-0004Uc-PH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 20:57:54 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LPopH-0004Qy-Ri for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 20:57:47 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LPopG-0004PF-K0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 20:57:47 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=35408 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LPopG-0004P7-F2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 20:57:46 -0500 Original-Received: from mtps01.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.223]:55945) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LPopD-0002er-FU; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 20:57:43 -0500 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mtps01.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8157F1535A8; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:57:40 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 78E6F1A4AE4; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:57:49 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: <3f14737c0901211533p87ee668wce75d76143c40893@mail.gmail.com> X-Mailer: VM 8.0.12-devo-585 under 21.5 (beta28) "fuki" 83e35df20028+ XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/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:108063 Archived-At: John Yates writes: > That defaulting to rich-root may take bzr some time does that preclude > the emacs project from initializing its master repository as rich-root? > After that would not rich-rootiness simply propagate to new branches? It's not rich-root itself that is most important, though rich-root is indeed an important feature for the Emacs repository. It's a heuristic for "work on the repo format/other important aspects has proceeded sufficiently far." There are several changes in process that promise to allow dramatically improved performance on very frequent operations like "bzr log". Some of those may need a new repo format. I will note that Python is currently creating a PEP to move the Python repositories from Subversion to a DVCS. The three candidates are bzr, hg, and git. Despite a strong prior bias toward bzr, the PEP proponent's initial impression upon actually trying some of the scenarios is a shocked "bzr is almost unusable, might kill off one-off contributions from new contributors" [my paraphrase]. I expect that will be moderated with experience in more scenarios, but if somebody with a strong prior that bzr is a good way to go reacts in that fashion, I think we have to worry that potential Emacs contributors will do so, too. Please do read the initial impressions section at the end of http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dg7fctr4_40dvjkdg64. I'm deliberately overstating the case ... maybe. :-( The GNOME DVCS survey also showed bzr as quite weak in comparison to the other two leading candidates: http://blogs.gnome.org/newren/2009/01/03/gnome-dvcs-survey-results/ I do *not* intend to reopen a debate on which DVCS to use; that is decided. I do intend a caution about timing. In terms of the tools that people use daily, "fools rush in where angels fear to tread" and "better the devil you know than the devil you don't" are proverbs we should not take lightly.