From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Karl Fogel Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: On the subject of Git, Bazaar, and the future of Emacs development Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 13:05:02 -0500 Message-ID: <871uaygjzl.fsf@kwarm.red-bean.com> References: <87hajxqlly.fsf@yandex.ru> <87k3orw7qp.fsf@kwarm.red-bean.com> Reply-To: Karl Fogel NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1364580318 9185 80.91.229.3 (29 Mar 2013 18:05:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 18:05:18 +0000 (UTC) Cc: lekktu@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, john@yates-sheets.org To: Richard Stallman Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 29 19:05:43 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 1ULdgH-0006DV-Qv for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 19:05:37 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58773 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ULdft-0005vg-Ic for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:05:13 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:46568) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ULdfo-0005tQ-EF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:05:12 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ULdfl-0006VI-Kj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:05:08 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-ie0-x233.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4001:c03::233]:54450) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ULdfl-0006Ui-GM; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:05:05 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-ie0-f179.google.com with SMTP id k11so784165iea.10 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 11:05:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:reply-to:date :in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=0CvguTgncc/+3vFuTwAtMJobgjaMzysyE6l1zIkkp9w=; b=kC1QAJpHDXw7uQEEmklWxMIlBAJhOGQu+lk4+gbL/h7MQNV/C4ft4KFB03aBCEYp9a +nz8a1zy0Kw2xHsNMoCpuFDJyQayeZEHIJ7jCUCMeWDwWFG0dMdhQDTngmWnAc+7ajUZ SydMcrO/qkvoDCFCjClTvgOmHoazKzKvsyAug1mn7e0S9o9UqBpxckViFj2uBTSzr3XK GmLx0vlQC4eeeRQPOk2SHnusCDD0PAmIQnajw2tY2qY25pGYLBI06SHj5UD5G1/9+/Pu b4DiMbIWI2nYXL+VvgNBlwCpxv1NNv4Q9dM3UXGAhhG0+tWuaO4JyZyIMjKu46PJu3zE GT7Q== X-Received: by 10.50.119.104 with SMTP id kt8mr312800igb.0.1364580304995; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 11:05:04 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from kwarm.red-bean.com (74-92-190-113-Illinois.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [74.92.190.113]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id wn10sm496624igb.2.2013.03.29.11.05.03 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 29 Mar 2013 11:05:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Thu, 28 Mar 2013 23:48:32 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:4001:c03::233 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:158437 Archived-At: Richard Stallman writes: > But then why do you think you still have the time & mental bandwidth to > make this decision well? Why not delegate it to the Emacs maintainers > >Because more than Emacs is at stake here. Let me rephrase to just: "Why not delegate?" That is, you should either devote enough time to evaluating Bzr's maintenance state to get a reliable answer, or delegate to someone who can do so. Since there are people here who have *already* put in more time & effort to find that answer than you have (and than you will be able to, given your self-described constraints), there is an existence proof that delegation is feasible. My point is not that the Emacs maintainers would do the investigation. It's that they would rely on those who have been following Bzr more closely than you have, and who have researched it in greater depth recently, and make a decision based on what those people discover. Instead, you're asking the maintainers to rely on your investigation... yet you clearly don't have time to do a good job. This is a poor use of everyone's time -- yours, but also that of the other devs -- and does not serve the GNU project well in any case. The fact that "more than Emacs is at stake here" just makes this even worse! Another solution is for you to spend enough time to get a reliable answer. That would mean looking through the Bazaar mailing lists and bug tracker and getting a sense of its overall maintenance state. If you do that, I will believe the conclusion you come to. But you've indicated you will not do that. (I have done it, and came tentatively to a conclusion; it could be refuted by real research from you, but not by you getting a single answer from a single person about a single bug.) -Karl