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: Git mirrors Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 13:50:08 +0900 Message-ID: <87y5wonpmn.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> 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> <87d3e2rfte.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <878voqfiaw.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87zkh4bhho.fsf@wanadoo.es> 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 1318567824 8105 80.91.229.12 (14 Oct 2011 04:50:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 04:50:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=93scar?= Fuentes , rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Juanma Barranquero Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Oct 14 06:50:20 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 1REZit-00031y-Me for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 06:50:20 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58790 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1REZis-0001cE-A7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 00:50:18 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:57596) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1REZio-0001bw-2L for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 00:50:15 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1REZim-0007J8-Ta for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 00:50:14 -0400 Original-Received: from mgmt2.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.224]:40719) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1REZim-0007Iz-D9; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 00:50:12 -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 17C259707BE; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 13:50:09 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 10E491A2739; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 13:50:09 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0a1 under 21.5 (beta31) "ginger" 6c76f5b7e2e3 XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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:145195 Archived-At: Juanma Barranquero writes: > Are you seriously comparing Solitaire with a VCS? No, he's exaggerating. Nevertheless, the GNU system envisioned in the GNU Manifesto was much less ambitious than what we see today. GNU clearly has experienced orders of magnitude mission creep, but the resources devoted to the core mission (software freedom) are now way too small. Cf. Miles' and my posts questioning acceptance of Bazaar as a GNU project. > Most software projects are mainained with the help of a VCS, and if > chosing one as "official", a DVCS seems more sensible than a > non-distributed one. For sure. And GNU now has two. GNU Arch (since 2003), a definitely freedom-loving project. And GNU Bazaar (just in time to be adopted by Emacs; coincidence?) For heaven's sake, even the name "Bazaar" evokes open source ideals! > I really dislike this argument, because it means that people who wants > to contribute to some free software project will avoid to do so > because it does not use their tool of choice. I don't understand what you're trying to say. =C3=93scar is precisely arguing that there should be *no* "official" GNU VCS, because there are too many good ones out there. > > by sending the message to other creators of Free Software that > > GNU is out there to aggressively compete with them regardless of > > merit.) >=20 > GNU software is out there to aggressively compete, and win the users, > yes (at least the ones that care about freedom too). "Regardless of > merit" is meaningless, because the users will chose the one which best > fits their needs. That's precisely =C3=93scar's point, though. If users are choosing something other than GNU, and it's clear that GNU makes choices based on favoritism toward GNU-labeled projects, that makes the GNU recommendation meaningless as a signal of quality. It's already meaningless as a signal of the freedom of the software, since that is determined quite precisely by the license; no need for a GNU label. That leaves the GNU label as a signal of "political correctness" on the part of the *project* (*not* the software, which is *free* by assumption) and maybe "personal relationship to RMS" (not that RMS would refuse git because he doesn't like Linus, rather the other way around). While I understand it's not a *contradiction* in this context, the justaposition of emphasizing political correctness while advocating freedom is, uh, unattractive. It would be (economically) better if GNU developers making (currently) inferior software were encouraged to abandon their effort, and devote some of that time to improving the free rival(s), and most of it to developing software that currently has no attractive free implementation. Somebody else will have to explain the reasons for overriding the economics here, because it's not that "the economically better software is non-free". > which is to say that Savannah is doing a better job of supporting git > than Bazaar... That does not seem entirely compatible with the view > that GNU is rejecting git or favoring Bazaar. Richard has already announced here that he thinks Savannah made a mistake. He has clearly stated the policy: GNU does not reject git, but it does favor Bazaar. > But that was then. Currently, wanting to hack Emacs and not wanting to > use Bazaar seems a bit childish IMO. Yes, you'd prefer to use git. I > would prefer for Emacs to be written in Ada. I'll have to adapt. Can > you? Sure. But your analogy fails, because the problem here is not whether =C3=93scar can *adapt* to Emacs' use of bzr. He can, and he can use git (for developing Emacs) at the same time as bzr (for pushing his contributions) if he wants to. The problem is that many people are failing to *conform*. They're *adapting* by using a git mirror, and annoying larsi and Glenn et al by reporting bugs against git revision ids. John is trying to reduce or eliminate the annoyance by providing a canonical git repo with a publicly available git revid <-> bzr revid map. Richard's reluctance to express approval of this idea strikes me as going beyond *promoting* GNU Bazaar to *protecting* it.