From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: MAINTAINERS file Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 21:17:26 -0500 Message-ID: References: <18375.18663.981150.252393@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <87zlte3848.fsf@ambire.localdomain> <877igipc17.fsf@jbms.ath.cx> <87tzjmnsiz.fsf@jbms.ath.cx> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1205029061 10686 80.91.229.12 (9 Mar 2008 02:17:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 02:17:41 +0000 (UTC) Cc: eliz@gnu.org, jeremy@jeremyms.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Juanma Barranquero" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Mar 09 03:18:08 2008 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 1JYB70-00057B-Kn for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 09 Mar 2008 03:18:06 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JYB6S-00074E-AM for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 08 Mar 2008 21:17:32 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JYB6O-00073E-J6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Mar 2008 21:17:28 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JYB6N-00072A-DA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Mar 2008 21:17:28 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JYB6N-00071z-80 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Mar 2008 21:17:27 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JYB6N-0005tV-2G for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Mar 2008 21:17:27 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1JYB6M-0001z6-Li; Sat, 08 Mar 2008 21:17:26 -0500 In-reply-to: (lekktu@gmail.com) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: 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:91834 Archived-At: > The GNU Project is not just a collection of software packages. Its > intended result is a coherent operating system. It is particularly > important therefore that GNU packages should work well with other GNU > packages. By that reasoning, we all should try using GNU/Hurd, shouldn't we? If the Hurd were ready for general use, then I would ask everyone to try it, for that reason. But it isn't. That has nothing to do with the case at hand. You're exaggerating what I said, then criticizing your exaggeration. That is just a straw man. It is not useful. > The maintainers of one GNU package should use other GNU packages so > they will notice whether the packages work well together, and make > them work well together. Perhaps. But if git were used by 90% of users, and Bazaar by 5% So what? The decision I've made is for the real situation. However, but your hypothetical world is relevant in one way: we want to avoid letting it happen. By making Emacs support Bzr as well as possible, and by using Bzr and saying so, we will encourage other projects to use Bzr, and thus give it a better chance not to end up with 5%. > Other people don't necessarily see which editor you use, > but they all see what dVCS you use. That would be more convincing if every GNU package except by Emacs were using Bazaar. Is that so? You're the one trying to convince me. I'm just explaining. You argument seems to say that the GNU Project should never establish a new convention and ask projects to follow it, because no package should ever be asked first. We already know the most important thing about what we will find from a careful study of git, mercurial and Bzr. We will find that each has its advantages and disadvantages -- but none of them conclusive. Each will be preferred by some people, but any one of them would work out well enough. The best thing to do is to choose the one that is the GNU package is easier, and get the decision over with.