Re: Switching to Subversion

[Sascha Wilde <wilde@sha-bang.de>]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:

> Sascha Wilde <wilde@sha-bang.de> writes:
>
>> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
>>
>>> In my opinion, any SCM system that is not fully supported by a
>>> stock Emacs 22 on all major operating systems where Emacs runs on
>>> is not acceptable for managing Emacs 23.
>>
>> But on the other hand: Emacs Developers will be using the
>> development version anyway, so integrating mercurial support shortly
>> after the release should be sufficient.
>
> Disagree.  Shortly after the release, development versions can be
> expected to be hosed temporarily, and the only Emacs version one can
> depend on to work reliably is the last released one.
>
> If you can't work the SCM from a _stable_ version of Emacs, it is a
> mess to get back on track.

Mercurial (respectively the supporting modes) does work with Emacs 22,
it's just that they aren't part of the stock distribution yet.  If
it is really essential that the SCM support for a potential new system
is part of the current release (which I doubt), we should try to get
it in before the release.

The most important point is: we shouldn't base a decision for or
against a new SCM on that question, especially not when there _is_
support for Emacs available and the supporting modes are just not part
of Emacs yet.

In fact, at this point of time there is no support for most free
distributed SCMs (git, bazar, bazar ng, darcs, monotone, mercurial
...) in stock Emacs, it would be a big loss if this would be a reason
to rule out all of them.

cheers
sascha
-- 
"Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on a Web 
page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web, when you had 
very little chance of reading a document written on another computer, another 
word processor, or another network." -- Tim Berners-Lee, July 1996