From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Git mirrors Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 07:49:50 -0400 Message-ID: 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> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii 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 1318333809 27018 80.91.229.12 (11 Oct 2011 11:50:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:50:09 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ofv@wanadoo.es, lekktu@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, miles@gnu.org To: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 11 13:50:05 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 1RDaqT-00005y-0N for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:50:05 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35897 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RDaqS-0001V9-D3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 07:50:04 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:37997) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RDaqL-0001R4-3F for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 07:50:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RDaqH-00007i-QJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 07:49:56 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:44627) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RDaqH-00007e-On for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 07:49:53 -0400 Original-Received: from eliz by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RDaqE-0002bf-5H; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 07:49:50 -0400 In-reply-to: <87ehyjrhxh.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> (turnbull@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.10 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:144880 Archived-At: > From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" > Cc: Óscar Fuentes , > lekktu@gmail.com, > miles@gnu.org, > emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:33:46 +0900 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > Why should you expect the Emacs project to behave differently from any > > other Free Software project? > > Because most of the projects in the class you have mentioned produce > free *software*, but their political principles are those of the open > source movement. Emacs is different because it *is* a Free Software > project. I specifically mentioned Gawk and GDB, which are GNU projects as much as Emacs. > One could argue that Emacs should advocate the use of the > strongest possible "team" of free software tools, rather than being > biased to the use of GNU-labeled tools. After all, the project has no > problem labelling other non-GNU tools (TeX, perl, X11) as "part of the > GNU System". But choosing tools on technical capability is clearly > not the policy of the GNU Project, so the point is moot. Choosing tools solely on technical capability isn't the policy, true. But that's not really the point, because I was talking about the behavior _after_ a decision has been made, not about the decision itself. IOW, about "now", and not about "then". > > 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. > > Promoting an unusable tool merely because it had the GNU label is most > definitely unfriendly competition. Bzr is not unusable, so this argument is simply false.