Re: What a modern collaboration toolkit looks like

[CHENG Gao <chenggao@gmail.com>]

*On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 23:52:53 -0500
* Also sprach Sam Steingold <sds@gnu.org>:

> Note however that with CVS, getting CVS head and building it is hardly
> more expensive than downloading a source tarball - wrt both bandwidth
> and disk space.  With git, the situation is vastly different: you cannot
> just get the head, you always get the whole change history, so instead
> of 40MB, you will be getting and storing 200MB.  This may not be a big
> deal these days for many people, but it might be a showstopper for some.

Yes you are right. Ever I tried to git clone emacs git repo at home, and
it took forever so I had to abort the mission. I got a 2m ADSL at home.
Instead I git cloned it in office, and it took only several minutes with
10M line. My experience and worry is git clone may be slow for slow
connections.

Personally I hope Emacs can be developped with DVCS like git or
Mercurial or bzr since I trust it's easier for Emacs developers to add
new features and for users to test these features. And then developers
can submit mature features/codes to some dedicated mailing list via
email (git or hg or bzr all have this feature to easily generate and
send patchs) for review by core developer(s) or a dedicated team. If
codes are accepted, they can be merged into OFFICIAL CENTRALIZED Emacs
repo, and at the same time propogated to Emacs CVS. (If I understand
correctly, it's what Bug Buddy of BZR does).

I hope Emacs can use this decentralized/centralized combination. It
makes development easier and codes can get more extensive testing since
users can test features by cloning some unofficial work-in-progress
features. And at the same time, it can maintain stability and integrity
of official repo.

I think the proper time is after merge of unicode-2 branch since then
only two or three branches need be kept - master, emacs_22_base (&
lexbind?).

-- 
Volo, non valeo