From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=93scar_Fuentes?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Git mirrors Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:56:26 +0200 Message-ID: <87zkh7g005.fsf@wanadoo.es> References: <8762k095n4.fsf@lifelogs.com> <871uuksdxi.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87lissh32y.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87zkh8e286.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <87d3e4gttq.fsf@wanadoo.es> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1318337822 23060 80.91.229.12 (11 Oct 2011 12:57:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:57:02 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 11 14:56:57 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 1RDbt8-0007PX-5f for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:56:54 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53262 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RDbt7-0002KG-Mk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:56:53 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:33655) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RDbt1-0002Fo-OC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:56:52 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RDbsx-0007tT-B8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:56:47 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:41982) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RDbsw-0007tD-U9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:56:43 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RDbsv-0007K8-Ci for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:56:41 +0200 Original-Received: from 175.red-83-45-165.dynamicip.rima-tde.net ([83.45.165.175]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:56:41 +0200 Original-Received: from ofv by 175.red-83-45-165.dynamicip.rima-tde.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:56:41 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 99 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 175.red-83-45-165.dynamicip.rima-tde.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:nqQgc7RCo7iZa8qp3wTnzTHlm1Q= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 80.91.229.12 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:144884 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> The decision on Bzr was political, not technical > > Yes, it was. So was the decision to develop GNU Emacs, GCC, and the > whole GNU Project. And your point is? You are comparing apples to oranges. Emacs and GCC came into being because there was no available options that were Free and cooperative. Or else a decission to create a flagship for Free Software was taken. That does not fit the bzr case at all. >> and now objections are made to adding support for other Free tools >> as a service to those contributors that consider them more >> convenient. > > No, there are no objections to that. You (or anyone else) are free to > set out to make that happen, whether on Savannah or elsewhere. That's not how do I interpret this reaction: > I think it would benefit the GNU Emacs project, the Emacs developers and > maintainers, and the Emacs community as a whole if there was an official > read-only Git mirror of the Emacs repository that was updated with every > Bazaar push. I just want to make the point that since Bazaar is a GNU project, IMO this would not benefit the GNU project as a whole. (I'm not saying don't do it, just making a point.) That's my response too. > Objections _are_ made to force the Emacs project to do this work for > you, No. There are people who are volunteering: > Trying to be constructive about this, this would be helpful, but presumably > a fully automatic sync is not possible, or someone would have done it by > now. I have my own fully-automated sync happening here on my own machine, using git-bzr and bzr-fast-import, so I can't imagine it would be any harder for a server to do. > If someone can do it, please work to get it done on Savannah so that we > never have to have this discussion again. Give me ssh access and I'll do it. > when in fact the Emacs project already provides a reasonable > solution for distributed development and contribution to the project. "Reasonable" is your opinion. Certainly it works, but it is a PITA to use for some of us. > Let me turn the table and ask you: are you aware of any significant > number of projects that use git and provide a bzr gateway for those > who want that? I have yet to see such a project. I was involved on projects that were perfectly fine with providing bzr access at the request of users. And here "users" means "Óscar". Then I switched to git and nobody asked for bzr support since. But are you suggesting that git users are reluctant to provide bzr access to the projects were they participate? Is this about rejecting the setup of a working git mirror for Emacs because some project out there rejected to setup a bzr mirror? Please let's drop this argument. [snip] >> What I'm saying is that that does not send a friendly signal to >> other Free Software projects and representing GNU as an unfriendly >> competitor of other Free tools harms the cause of Free Software. > > I fail to see how this interpretation can be gleaned from what's been > said here. Projects that use git as their VCS are not being accused > of being "unfriendly competitors" to the GNU Project, and I, for one, > don't think they are. So what you say is simply unfair. I hope > fairness is still a virtue around here. You are completely dismissing history. I'm sure you can recall how bzr was chosen and the whole saga until it was operational. When the decission of using bzr was made, it was a niche tool with known heavy performance problems that required more than a year to fix while mercurial and git were perfectly fit, with a git mirror of the CVS repo in working state. The message to Free Software developers is clear: "either bow to GNU, or your work will be ignored by us, no matter how excellent it is." And this is where I ask: is GNU an end on itself or a means to promote Free Software? Is it about the success of GNU or the success of Free Software?