From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: source repository Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 08:52:11 +0200 Message-ID: <86tzskpso4.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> References: <200707031442.28402.pogonyshev@gmx.net> <468A3997.2040500@f2s.com> <200707031514.17225.pogonyshev@gmx.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1183531940 2111 80.91.229.12 (4 Jul 2007 06:52:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 06:52:20 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, jasonr@f2s.com, Paul Pogonyshev To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jul 04 08:52:19 2007 connect(): Connection refused 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 1I5yio-0006fK-Eg for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 04 Jul 2007 08:52:18 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I5yin-00083N-FA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 04 Jul 2007 02:52:17 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1I5yij-00083I-W6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Jul 2007 02:52:14 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1I5yij-000836-3a for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Jul 2007 02:52:13 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I5yij-000833-0V for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Jul 2007 02:52:13 -0400 Original-Received: from pc3.berlin.powerweb.de ([62.67.228.11]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1I5yii-0007PH-Ce for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Jul 2007 02:52:12 -0400 Original-Received: from quinscape.de (dslnet.212-29-44.ip210.dokom.de [212.29.44.210] (may be forged)) by pc3.berlin.powerweb.de (8.9.3p3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA17524 for ; Wed, 4 Jul 2007 08:52:05 +0200 X-Delivered-To: Original-Received: (qmail 13088 invoked from network); 4 Jul 2007 06:52:11 -0000 Original-Received: from unknown (HELO lola.quinscape.zz) ([10.0.3.43]) (envelope-sender ) by ns.quinscape.de (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 4 Jul 2007 06:52:11 -0000 Original-Received: by lola.quinscape.zz (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 77CDF8F8F7; Wed, 4 Jul 2007 08:52:11 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Tue\, 03 Jul 2007 23\:43\:42 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/23.0.51 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 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:74278 Archived-At: Richard Stallman writes: > Oh. A pity Emacs still uses so old system. I got used to Subversion > lately. > > We did not switch to Subversion because the people who develop > Subversion are not sympathetic to the ideas of the free software > movement. That is a sufficient reason, given that CVS works fine. It doesn't for continuously managing multiple branches of development. There is a reason why Miles does most of the work in that area using arch. And the sympathy of CVS developers does not buy us much when there is no active development or bug fixes for our sakes. Of course, we would not want to depend on a system with unsympathetic developers when it is likely that we will depend on their further support or when their system is not licensed as free software (which more or less implies a perpetual dependency). The Linux/Bitkeeper situation was such a one. I actually use the outcome of that clash, the git system, for managing local multiple branches and merges, and it works quite well. Since it is completely decentralized (it does not require something like arch tags and can even cater for the history of split files and functions moved into different files), people can use it without the need of a centralized repository. However, git's exchange functions with Subversion are much better than those interacting with CVS, so I actually prefer working on Subversion to working on git, even though Subversion does not really offer better merge support. One major point going for git is merge tracking: it keeps track of how you resolve merge failures, and can apply the same solution when merging branches in a similar situation. git's developers, it being the Linux kernel source management system, are a diverse bunch, mostly tending to agnosticism towards the cause of free software. However, they are responsive about problem reports, and they have to use the system actively to manage a large-scale multi-person project with lots of branching and sand-boxed development. And git is released as free software (GPLv2 rather than Subversion's Apache/BSD). Personally, I consider the "anarchism" of it, namely that it is actually more or less each developer's personal choice, not dependent on a central repository, whether or not he uses git for working with others and preparing patches, an advantage. -- David Kastrup