From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thomas Lord Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: MAINTAINERS file Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 18:27:35 -0800 Message-ID: <47D1F997.6030303@emf.net> References: <18375.18663.981150.252393@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <87tzjmnsiz.fsf@jbms.ath.cx> <85hcfi28n2.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <47D18DBF.5020302@emf.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040503000705050404090406" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1204937447 31100 80.91.229.12 (8 Mar 2008 00:50:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 00:50:47 +0000 (UTC) Cc: eliz@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, jeremy@jeremyms.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Juanma Barranquero Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Mar 08 01:51:14 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JXnHG-0007Ta-1K for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 08 Mar 2008 01:51:06 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JXnGi-0005xE-A7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 07 Mar 2008 19:50:32 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JXnGe-0005x0-7J for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Mar 2008 19:50:28 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JXnGc-0005wO-Cj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Mar 2008 19:50:27 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JXnGc-0005wL-AF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Mar 2008 19:50:26 -0500 Original-Received: from mail.42inc.com ([205.149.0.25]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (SSL 3.0:RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA1:24) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JXnGQ-0003gw-8e; Fri, 07 Mar 2008 19:50:15 -0500 X-TFF-CGPSA-Version: 1.5 X-TFF-CGPSA-Filter-42inc: Scanned X-42-Virus-Scanned: by 42 Antivirus -- Found to be clean. Original-Received: from [69.236.65.4] (account lord@emf.net HELO [192.168.1.64]) by mail.42inc.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.13) with ESMTPA id 24831198; Fri, 07 Mar 2008 16:49:26 -0800 User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060808) In-Reply-To: X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:91682 Archived-At: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040503000705050404090406 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 > > --------------040503000705050404090406 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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

  








--------------040503000705050404090406--