From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jay Belanger Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Prefer Mercurial instead of git Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 11:13:33 -0600 Message-ID: <874n5hyqwy.fsf@gmail.com> References: <1388785952.11337.16.camel@Iris> <3166302.gI3LmCZv1L@descartes> <1388853707.11337.27.camel@Iris> <87zjnby4nu.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <1388862282.11337.31.camel@Iris> <87bnzr8s03.fsf@wanadoo.es> <831u0mv1mw.fsf@gnu.org> <87txdi74mc.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83ppo6tkjx.fsf@gnu.org> <87bnzqge8g.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <871u0m2bqa.fsf@floss.red-bean.com> <87ha9hzw2d.fsf@gmail.com> <87mwj912a9.fsf@floss.red-bean.com> Reply-To: jay.p.belanger@gmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1389028459 2062 80.91.229.3 (6 Jan 2014 17:14:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 17:14:19 +0000 (UTC) Cc: jay.p.belanger@gmail.com To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 06 18:14:26 2014 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 1W0Dkv-0000N3-Ep for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 18:14:25 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36439 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W0Dku-00082T-7n for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 12:14:24 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42208) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W0Dki-0007pl-BN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 12:14:20 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W0DkZ-0006xc-VU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 12:14:12 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-ob0-x229.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4003:c01::229]:55206) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W0DkZ-0006xR-Pt for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 12:14:03 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-ob0-f169.google.com with SMTP id wm4so18670643obc.14 for ; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 09:14:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:subject:references:reply-to:cc:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=bpyIp0J5ynIv/kITPPnMKaD0vlYhkS2/EELMg8kCI2k=; b=f6TOGAzhcXBe7tApBPSOiiZPAhMCVZ0c1RoW43EEWjasiCTzKz0xc8S1YshgVQb7k8 SdjLl96oPdJSmn4ZxR974ANBTzbIrM1OwTznbO2jGWmtq4B5CH+sp53O+oBGgqIPiI+1 EXyHvcKxg1u7asj+4ZD1I2Va+e5l+F0zPFxe6ldN9extB2+7k4LVJFzvupods3WFGigi L4DPSQ4sxHGeilyLlCzBvQ3tKrd/q1nwJcSLqJ7AbBM3rjNvPtFX+OZi2gS555akCglt C999DO/s4s0mIHjYK0+fN2nz2Bmq010GD3LPiPKogoF11TelbgWJmvWVDvA/1YjFfpxm vJpQ== X-Received: by 10.60.124.138 with SMTP id mi10mr2058107oeb.57.1389028442935; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 09:14:02 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from belanger-home (184-155-87-143.cpe.cableone.net. [184.155.87.143]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id cx7sm100516485oeb.4.2014.01.06.09.14.01 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 06 Jan 2014 09:14:02 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87mwj912a9.fsf@floss.red-bean.com> (Karl Fogel's message of "Mon, 06 Jan 2014 10:51:58 -0600") 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:f8b0:4003:c01::229 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:167481 Archived-At: >>That would just tell you who was the loudest, not which choice was >>preferred by most people. I suspect it wouldn't matter, but if numbers >>are wanted, I think some sort of formal vote should be taken. > > My intention with my "PROPOSAL:" mail was to gather those numbers; I > think those people followed up with a "+1" (or the opposite) grokked > that intention. Maybe, maybe not; but "I guess we should hold a poll" isn't necessarily the same thing as "This is a poll", and I didn't regard it as such. > So the numbers in that thread be gathered accurately without regard to > who's loudest -- we don't count someone twice just because they posted > twice. Not everybody voiced an opinion; the quieter people would not be counted at all. > Now, it may not have been clear that the thread was meant to > take this count, and we could have a separate "VOTE:" thread if we > really want to, but my strong impression from the existing thread is > that we already know how that vote would turn out. I don't think it was clear, but your impression may well be right. >>Of course, maybe numbers aren't necessary; Stefan may just want to hear >>the discussion and decide what to do. Or maybe he already has. > > I thought he has, and has stated so. In which case polls don't matter. Jay