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: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:16:38 -0400 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 1205169750 21135 80.91.229.12 (10 Mar 2008 17:22:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:22:30 +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 Mon Mar 10 18:22:57 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 1JYlhj-0005ht-MX for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:22:27 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JYlhB-00027M-BZ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:21:53 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JYlc8-0006fn-DH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:16:40 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JYlc7-0006fB-8a for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:16:39 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JYlc7-0006f5-37 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:16:39 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JYlc6-0002G4-Va for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:16:39 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1JYlc6-0007Fe-Ex; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:16:38 -0400 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:92070 Archived-At: > If the Hurd were ready for general use, then I would ask everyone > to try it, for that reason. So technical reasons are relevant there... Indeed they are. My decision is based on the technical circumstances and the overall goals of the GNU Project. When there are several comparable, workable packages that do similar jobs, we should use the one that is a GNU package. That is the situation here. > So what? The decision I've made is for the real situation. What is the real situation? Do we have data about the number of users of Bazaar vs. git or mercurial? The real situation is that these programs are still developing, and their competition is still developing too. Whatever the current usage figures are, they are liable to change. So if, hypothetically, Bzr is behind in the race at present, that is no reason to fail to support it. > 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. I thought you were opposed to straw man arguments... That's overgeneralizing what I said to the extreme. That generalization comes from you. It is the implicit premise of what you said, so your argument rests on assuming it in full generality. At least, that's how I understand what you said. Here are your words: That would be more convincing if every GNU package except by Emacs were using Bazaar. Is that so? They are rather vague and terse, so anyone trying to refute it has to fill in what you left out. I did my best. If I did not fill it in quite as you had in mind, you should have spoken more clearly. > 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. We know we will find that, when there's been no unbiased comparison. Yes, we know that much. It is already clear that all three programs are basically workable. An "unbiased comparison" would show us detailed advantages of each. I don't know what they are, but I know they are not important enough to override the GNU-level reason to choose the GNU package. So I have made the decision that way.