From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Juanma Barranquero" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: MAINTAINERS file Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 01:35:41 +0100 Message-ID: References: <18375.18663.981150.252393@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <87tzjmnsiz.fsf@jbms.ath.cx> <85hcfi28n2.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <47D18DBF.5020302@emf.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1204936559 29014 80.91.229.12 (8 Mar 2008 00:35:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 00:35:59 +0000 (UTC) Cc: eliz@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, jeremy@jeremyms.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Thomas Lord" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Mar 08 01:36:26 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 1JXn2z-0003iX-U9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 08 Mar 2008 01:36:22 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JXn2R-0003s8-VE for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 07 Mar 2008 19:35:48 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JXn2N-0003rk-Lb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Mar 2008 19:35:43 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JXn2M-0003rY-Hp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Mar 2008 19:35:43 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JXn2M-0003rV-Ee for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Mar 2008 19:35:42 -0500 Original-Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.180]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JXn2M-0000iG-4m for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Mar 2008 19:35:42 -0500 Original-Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id k34so858561wah.10 for ; Fri, 07 Mar 2008 16:35:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=Tg8oRdswPA1ADGlzlzYG2cNeueUTVwdsj4shhnB/xa8=; b=SupfmLml1pEqJNM7QHaLjshPTRMfLjrAPI7WlMNeAu8uk7eO00st9cxliurDLqkLcRXeidDp36IwYbrskdSqzP8yj+zwZuHjpEp7RFcreGoXeBKCVpYKOMuA3VGGVl7SvlMw4bO7Z3kNxyk7dmQY5cBXqvTt1+B/E/fy0JK2yn4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=RiNBSCpUnQ2VRSZ0TdRbtXjOSCXA9MG24hviG4nPy7EBsXqgYAWCDPOTIFvW8XBBG8ApHAaHrfqBxVAzSX5G8OmMGRVVhMBHaILAL/uDeR61imZJNJjI/OHe4fTZSlL8TkNtNfWVdP1Ch7MGLa/65dLja0AjjmK6v7UJg0TY1lU= Original-Received: by 10.141.27.16 with SMTP id e16mr1212771rvj.141.1204936541209; Fri, 07 Mar 2008 16:35:41 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.114.166.20 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 16:35:41 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <47D18DBF.5020302@emf.net> Content-Disposition: inline X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) 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:91679 Archived-At: On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 7:47 PM, Thomas Lord wrote: > Probably so but any group of smart people could easily spend > a year arguing about it. Not even a year arguing about which system > is best but a year arguing just about what "best" means in this context. > > Over-optimizing a choice like that can be a *huge* resource > suck and projects and groups fail all the time because of falling > into such traps. Perhaps so, but on the other hand, many a project, some of them quite big, have been able to select a dVCS without spending a year arguing or failing into any trap. > Bad choices of X happen but, they tend to get ironed out well so > when it comes time to pick an X, there's no great reason to spend > too much time deliberating over it. There's a difference between "not [...] to spend too much time" and not spending time at all. > (Maybe, though, it is about time for a new task list and "vision > sketch" of a complete GNU. For example, an effort could be made > to assemble a candidate FSF/GNU distribution with the expectation > that the effort will fail, but will yield a list of what work remains to > be done.) That would be interesting. Juanma