From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Daniel Colascione Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: On the subject of Git, Bazaar, and the future of Emacs development Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:58:22 -0700 Message-ID: <515E139E.2070302@dancol.org> References: <87ehf1cwc4.fsf@maru.md5i.com> <20130331220136.GA16863@saturn> <83ip44iw3b.fsf@gnu.org> <83mwtef9f5.fsf@gnu.org> <85k3ohlwr9.fsf@member.fsf.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="----enig2CJBTOUPQKXIGWOVWEEEI" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1365120515 22099 80.91.229.3 (5 Apr 2013 00:08:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 00:08:35 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stephen Leake Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 05 02:09:02 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 1UNuDB-0001lG-17 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 05 Apr 2013 02:08:57 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59492 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UNuCm-0001Xw-2f for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 04 Apr 2013 20:08:32 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:36516) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UNuCh-0001Xl-Vd for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Apr 2013 20:08:29 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UNuCd-0007ZF-05 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Apr 2013 20:08:27 -0400 Original-Received: from dancol.org ([2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fedf:adf3]:52970) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UNu3Z-0004BG-0j for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Apr 2013 19:59:01 -0400 Original-Received: from c-76-22-66-162.hsd1.wa.comcast.net ([76.22.66.162] helo=[0.0.0.0]) by dancol.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UNu3R-0005ic-9P; Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:58:53 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5 In-Reply-To: <85k3ohlwr9.fsf@member.fsf.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fedf:adf3 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:158665 Archived-At: This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) ------enig2CJBTOUPQKXIGWOVWEEEI Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 4/4/2013 4:08 PM, Stephen Leake wrote: > Eli Zaretskii writes: >=20 >>> From: John Wiegley >>> Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 12:44:43 -0500 >>> >>> As a data point: if Emacs does decide on Git, I'll become a more acti= ve >>> contributor again; if it doesn't, I have other things to do. Bzr/Mer= curial is >>> enough of a "joy-stealing" barrier that -- like now -- I would not be= >>> interested in submitting my work upstream. And this same situation i= s true >>> for some others as well, as evidenced by voices on this mailing list.= >> >> I'm very sad to hear that, because I think it is improper for >> contributors to put up such an ultimatum for a project. =20 >=20 > It was not expressed as an ultimatum (read "threat"), just as a fact. I'm also having a very difficutl time reading John's post as an ultimatum= =2E I'd no different from saying "I'm less likely to contribute to Emacs if it's rewritten in COBOL". We're all volunteers here, and while at work, I'm pa= id to overcome organizational friction, there's no such countervailing force he= re. We all work on Emacs because we want to. VCS choice can reduce that desire, = and while that's unfortunate, it's a fact of the world we inhabit. I see very little justification for choosing anything other than git --- = it's high quality free software that's well on its way to becoming ubiquitous = in the development community. There is no moral, financial, or organizational pe= nalty to choosing it, and there are reams of advantages. Our choosing git would= advance the cause of free software as much as any other option and would = greatly streamline Emacs development. As I see it, the only other viable candidate is Mercurial, which, while b= eing high-quality, actively-developed free software, lacks the user base of gi= t. If Mercurial and git are equivalent of technical and ethical grounds, then g= it should emerge the victor due to its massive inertia. So why are we still arguing about this? Why aren't we switching to git? ------enig2CJBTOUPQKXIGWOVWEEEI Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (Cygwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlFeE6IACgkQ17c2LVA10VslgwCg19EZvyuCYd7GQFranD3puaBw gkIAnR29xYU9AwrvtI+JlFoMbEAmC6KY =gAi+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------enig2CJBTOUPQKXIGWOVWEEEI--