From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Robert Anderson Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [Fwd: [arch-users] Re: Gud lord!] Date: 09 Jun 2003 18:22:26 -0700 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <1055208147.1342.37.camel@lan1> References: <20030609102110.2C80.JMBARRANQUERO@laley.wke.es> <1055169445.1387.14.camel@lan1> <20030609165127.2C8F.JMBARRANQUERO@laley.wke.es> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1055207612 18003 80.91.224.249 (10 Jun 2003 01:13:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 01:13:32 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Tue Jun 10 03:13:27 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19PXhX-0004fs-00 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 03:13:27 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19PY1n-0005CI-00 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 03:34:23 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19PXia-0001Tt-59 for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 21:14:32 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19PXi4-0000nH-2x for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 21:14:00 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19PXhj-0008EM-Mh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 21:13:43 -0400 Original-Received: from pimout2-ext.prodigy.net ([207.115.63.101]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19PXhh-00085P-In for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 21:13:37 -0400 Original-Received: from [192.168.0.2] (adsl-64-163-139-137.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [64.163.139.137])h5A1DZ3T193394; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 21:13:35 -0400 Original-To: Juanma Barranquero In-Reply-To: <20030609165127.2C8F.JMBARRANQUERO@laley.wke.es> X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 (1.0.8-11) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b5 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:14978 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:14978 On Mon, 2003-06-09 at 08:00, Juanma Barranquero wrote: > > On 09 Jun 2003 07:37:24 -0700 > Robert Anderson wrote: > > > Sure, and people could contribute if you read them the source over the > > phone as well. That's all they would "need." Would you contribute if > > that's all the facility you had? > > I did (not the phone, the read-only access). Many people *do*, as I've > said. I know, I end commiting quite a few of these patches. With all due respect: duh. > And forgive me, but the "phone line" example is a bit ridiculous. > Read-only access to CVS repositories is tried and true. So was hand-crank starter, or the ice box with daily ice delivery. >It's not perfect, but is not *that* bad. I find it unusable, but not mainly for that reason. > arch, subversion, even BitKeeper if it was free, would perhaps be better > than CVS; I'm not arguing against that. Just that CVS and read-only > access aren't as great deterrents as you make it sound. Care to show me the controlled experiment to demonstrate that? Otherwise, you are simply guessing. Just take a look > at the very big and successful projects whose source control system is > CVS. Sorry, but this is an inane line of reasoning IMO. I could equally point out _massively many_ failed projects using CVS. So what? > Anyway, if I had to vote, I'd chose to wait for subversion. That's because you don't understand either system, IMO. > > It's not optimal, and neither is > > working in an non source controlled environment for developing > > substantial contributions. > > No, it's not optimal, and certainly I don't remember having said it was. > But even now there are people who does big contributions (I mean, not > tiny patches of 5-10 lines, but changes of hundreds or thousands of > lines) and who do not have write access nor (seem to) want it. Sure, and monks used to scribe Bibles by hand and spread them around the world. I guess the printing press was never really needed. Anyway: enough of the "CVS is good enough" thread for me. Bob