Re: What have the Romans done for us? (Bazaar)

[chad <yandros@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1622 bytes --]

On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>wrote:

> > While I'm no real fan of bazaar, wait until we want to merge the
> > gtk-tabs branch, or the bidi branch, or the lexbind branch, or (even
> > better) more than one of those into the mainline, and I think you'll
> > see a a big difference versus cvs.
>
> No, *he* (like most people) won't.  And it's not going to be
> significantly easier than when we did it in the (near) past, because we
> already used to do it in a DVCS (namely Arch) thanks to Miles's mirror.
>
> But yes, for the person handling the merge (and even more so for the
> person who maintains the branch until it gets merged), it helps a lot.


I take your point, but my thought (perhaps not well-enough explained) was
that he (and we) would feel the benefits of it even if it was only
vicariously avoiding pain.

Let me put this another way:  If multi-tty was any indication, the sorts of
efforts represented by bidi, gtk-tabs, concurrent, and guile would be
suppressed/discouraged/obscured by a non-distributed system like cvs
compared to the ``here's my live repo'' state we have now, and we have been
very conservative in our adoption of dvcs system benefits (as evidenced by
the periodic ``why are we still doing this crud if we're using a dvcs?''
threads).

In the meantime, I'm now using bzr, because of emacs -- which I believe was
the (regardless of technical merit) reason that we adopted the system.
 Probably at least several others here are as well, so there's hope for it
to improve, as long as the growing pains aren't too onerous.

Thanks for your time.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2071 bytes --]