From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Karl Fogel Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: On the subject of Git, Bazaar, and the future of Emacs development Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:55:57 -0500 Message-ID: <87wqstnan6.fsf@kwarm.red-bean.com> References: Reply-To: Karl Fogel NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1364331378 22242 80.91.229.3 (26 Mar 2013 20:56:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 20:56:18 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Richard Stallman To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 26 21:56:44 2013 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 1UKav7-0003S1-Pv for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:56:38 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57140 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UKauj-00088s-SZ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 16:56:13 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:39621) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UKaue-00087L-1m for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 16:56:11 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UKaua-0002rR-Sf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 16:56:07 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-ie0-x22b.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22b]:42300) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UKauX-0002qz-Aa; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 16:56:01 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-ie0-f171.google.com with SMTP id e14so7715102iej.30 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:56:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:reply-to:date :in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=K29eNI/0BnyJdfeKa2r6sb7eSTDHohv/+qt5snh71YY=; b=APNnZ4yFNjlfuRvemOdBY4v9hVhIXcJErzkMePZ8KradikWMxGglPDfR7WNIwONLeL w524i0jb+omcPvilbO+vx2peI2HDuWBVQeL6DMZd7cy+crqdaZDky8isLl0sHzOiHOnD W3fSWPIUodK4nhs8PxkPz0WjOjlQcA5wlY0c9Jyy0JuHTXy+zrTEFQaP96XB8myVkdpy ff3slE12HoIvr/U8r5B207tMwijwIRVkGUEo6JM+gujCHqvgKJC0MeSTR8cPplca5++F /DJG3yEqVgw51AE70CeSWhMJtLUzpQdrHvbhAzmoBzPc4780Um0NpFp303L1pFZjm61E Xbcw== X-Received: by 10.50.57.200 with SMTP id k8mr2415924igq.44.1364331360062; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:56:00 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from kwarm.red-bean.com (74-92-190-113-Illinois.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [74.92.190.113]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ip2sm3690024igc.5.2013.03.26.13.55.58 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:55:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: (John Wiegley's message of "Tue, 26 Mar 2013 19:38:26 +0000") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22b 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:158247 Archived-At: "John Wiegley" writes: >We have often debated the merits of Git vs. Bazaar, and which one the GNU >project should use for Emacs development. I think now is an appropriate time >to revisit this decision. > >My main reason for bringing this up again is that Bazaar development has >effectively stalled. There are major bugs which have been in their >bug-tracker for years now -- bugs affecting Emacs development, such as the >ELPA repository -- whach have been ignored all this time. There are also >other factors, but this one alone is significant enough that I think it >justifies us switching over to Git all by itself. > >So, to Richard as the undisputed Czar of all things Emacs: can we now, pretty >please, switch to Git? :) I'm happy to coordinate whatever resources it takes >to make a full and faithful conversion from Bzr happen as soon as possible. +1 Calling Bazaar a "GNU project" is becomes more meaningless the slower Bzr's development gets. The last release candidate, 2.6b2, was in July 2012. That announcement said "2.6.0 is planned to be released in August 2012". I understand that unplanned things can delay a major release -- this can happen to any project. But it's a little more disturbing when there's a cessation of "beta" releases *on the way* to the next major release. If it's in the release testing process, then we should see successive beta releases, not inactivity. There are no announcements at all from after 24 July 2012, on the Bazaar home page at http://bazaar.canonical.com/en/. There is a small amount of activity in the bug tracker, but IMHO not enough. For example, look at the "89 New Bugs" [1] and make sure to use the little gear icon to turn on "Date Last Updated" and "Age" columns; click either column to sort by that column. What you'll see is that after the first 7 bugs, the next most recently filed new bug was filed more than four months ago. Of the first 7, only a few have meaningful responses (whether from a maintainer or otherwise). The needle on the "project health meter" in my head is hovering down near the low end of the dial. As a minor package maintainer in Emacs, I would be better able to do my job if the master Emacs sources were in Git. I don't use Bazaar for anything else now, so it's just another slightly different command set to remember. And it's clearly causing us trouble interacting with packages whose upstream maintenance happens outside our tree, in git. And for what? So we can say we're supporting a "GNU Project"? What a fascinating vector for a DoS attack: call $FOO a GNU Project and get Emacs to use it. Then don't maintain $FOO. I like Bazaar, and personally like the people who work on it (many of whom I've been lucky enough to meet). Canonical took a big risk developing it, and Bzr may well still be the right tool for the import of upstream sources into Launchpad for Ubuntu packaging. But for an independent upstream like Emacs, git long ago became the right choice. Maybe Emacs' decision to use Bazaar in order to support a fellow GNU project was the right at one time... but surely that decision's rightness can & should change based on changes in the status of Bzr and Emacs' needs? -Karl [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/bzr/+bugs?search=Search&field.status=New&orderby=-date_last_updated&start=0