From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Sascha Wilde Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Switching to Subversion Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 13:38:30 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87mz6y8y3j.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <87bqne87ur.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <10609.1163264429@olgas.newt.com> <87fycphhyr.fsf@pacem.orebokech.com> <87odrdzci9.fsf@olgas.newt.com> <87ac2w45e0.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <85y7qfvigo.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <85psbrvgrt.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1163421595 18592 80.91.229.2 (13 Nov 2006 12:39:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 12:39:55 +0000 (UTC) Cc: thomas@intevation.de, Bill Wohler , Juanma Barranquero , emacs-devel@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, Miles Bader Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Nov 13 13:39:52 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gjb6H-00061Z-Aj for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 13:39:45 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gjb6G-0003pw-Ri for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 07:39:44 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Gjb5I-0003TP-MA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 07:38:44 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Gjb5G-0003Re-3P for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 07:38:43 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gjb5F-0003RT-Lh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 07:38:41 -0500 Original-Received: from [62.141.58.119] (helo=km1136.keymachine.de) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1Gjb5A-0003Vg-QE; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 07:38:37 -0500 Original-Received: from kenny.sha-bang.de (xdslcs040.osnanet.de [89.166.146.40]) (authenticated bits=0) by km1136.keymachine.de (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.10) with ESMTP id kADCcTiR024430; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 13:38:29 +0100 Original-Received: from wilde by kenny.sha-bang.de with local (Kenny MUA v.0409034.42) ID 1Gjb54-0006nv-GT; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 13:38:30 +0100 Original-To: David Kastrup In-Reply-To: <85psbrvgrt.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> (David Kastrup's message of "Mon\, 13 Nov 2006 10\:26\:46 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.90 (gnu/linux) 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:62202 Archived-At: David Kastrup wrote: > Sascha Wilde writes: > >> David Kastrup 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