Juanma Barranquero wrote: > Perhaps so, but on the other hand, many a project, some of them quite > big, have been able to select a dVCS without spending a year arguing > or failing into any trap. > Sure, and, mostly the same way: the boss(es) just pick one, somewhat arbitrarily but perhaps with some intuition about what will work out. >> Bad choices of X happen but, they tend to get ironed out well so >> when it comes time to pick an X, there's no great reason to spend >> too much time deliberating over it. >> > > There's a difference between "not [...] to spend too much time" and > not spending time at all. > > Sure. I'm not trying to argue with you -- just interpret for you and maybe help you feel more comfortable with the decision. There's some arbitrary amount of time to think about it. Then some best-guess decision. GNU tends to work by, when such infathomable problems arise, let RMS roll the dice, so to speak: he times and makes the "impossible" choices. In this case, ESR, bless his heart, seems to have prompted quite a few list members to go back and refresh their perspective on dvcs and spout some observations and opinions. So, RMS got a fair amount of input. No one "argument in favor of system X" has obviously prevailed or obviously could prevail but the decision wasn't taken in a vacuum. The harsh version of the interpretation might be "Well, GNU is RMS' project so it's his call. Like or lump it." I'm just trying to point out that that's not a crazy policy because, in calling for a different approach to the decision, you're suggesting a (pretty radical) change in policy. >> (Maybe, though, it is about time for a new task list and "vision >> sketch" of a complete GNU. For example, an effort could be made >> to assemble a candidate FSF/GNU distribution with the expectation >> that the effort will fail, but will yield a list of what work remains to >> be done.) >> > > That would be interesting. > > Thanks. I think so, too. -t > Juanma > >