From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Giorgos Keramidas Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: On the subject of Git, Bazaar, and the future of Emacs development Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 00:01:37 +0200 Message-ID: <20130331220136.GA16863@saturn> References: <87ehf1cwc4.fsf@maru.md5i.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1364767317 3625 80.91.229.3 (31 Mar 2013 22:01:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 22:01:57 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Michael Welsh Duggan , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Leo Liu Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Apr 01 00:02:17 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UMQKP-0007X6-3p for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Apr 2013 00:02:17 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47687 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UMQK0-0000L5-N6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 31 Mar 2013 18:01:52 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:56506) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UMQJv-0000L0-0P for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 31 Mar 2013 18:01:51 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UMQJs-00080C-4d for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 31 Mar 2013 18:01:46 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-ee0-f49.google.com ([74.125.83.49]:38834) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UMQJr-000800-Ud for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 31 Mar 2013 18:01:44 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-ee0-f49.google.com with SMTP id d41so832941eek.22 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:01:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=iUM9Ng9SuePU8tGrAPneShZkmisVXp3CEdB6EUjcuBs=; b=AWC61LMfXXSefUnsEm9sSU3rQdoN7dZFvXhD46NBX4KN8xcpsMDgmOSZ28ugBMicyB 1l6sNy7KB5wkw0slMU9J4HcKHi5XKg4lXZcqnNrVs7+vFdsg0LREr4gSFQMJC77teXw7 lYB33R8NrLi7lXh8RTsPpU3a1CDV53IZcNGWg6da/fqdWjk9bAJFgy2m/yVSfU3D0ib8 z/zG9aiQS0Jip/z5p6lXf7ZsvMU00Izx8NLdy8yKUIJyN6oEjSVgcgWISSIXwMhDMkHZ MzNzSQInbEVnOjqX8pKJi7p+72sEd9PxUlH9aGvIaKJLgjHI0kNY1w7RDVVVxEFqnHAl OsiA== X-Received: by 10.14.202.71 with SMTP id c47mr30819698eeo.39.1364767302970; Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:01:42 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from saturn (217-162-217-29.dynamic.hispeed.ch. [217.162.217.29]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 3sm17872867eej.6.2013.03.31.15.01.40 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:01:41 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 74.125.83.49 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:158498 Archived-At: On 2013-03-27 14:38, Leo Liu wrote: >On 2013-03-27 12:15 +0800, Michael Welsh Duggan wrote: >> I see these Git versus Bazaar arguments pop up every now and then on >> this forum. I must admit my experience with Git has been better than >> that with Bazaar, but I have to ask, why isn't Mercurial being >> considered? From a license perspective, Mercurial is GPLv2+, while >> Git is GPLv2. I found Mercurial's command-line UI much easier to >> learn and understand than Git, and I believe the two are fairly >> comparable in power. > > The longevity of the project is very important. git being used for the > kernel guarantees its healthy growth for decades to come by then a > native version system will be built in emacs. > > Let's not muddy the water with another tool that is seemingly > adequate. BZR was seemingly adequate and was regarded could do the > job well. Now years later we are back to square one. > > I wish we could move directly to a tool that can serve us for a long > time and have it stayed out of the way of hacking on emacs. Mercurial is used for Python itself (and quite a few other large projects), so its longevity is not really a very difficult question. It will be here for at least as long as Python, which Bazaar also uses. While there is merit in the idea that we shouldn't muddy the waters with too many DVCS, it's also arguably a good idea to look at more than one option if the decision is made to switch away from Bazaar.