From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=93scar_Fuentes?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: bzr repository ready? Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:30:59 +0100 Message-ID: <87hbsgc4l8.fsf@telefonica.net> References: <877htl53tc.fsf@telefonica.net> <87ws1ku7zd.fsf@red-bean.com> <87hbso4s13.fsf@telefonica.net> <83aaygoy90.fsf@gnu.org> <87vdh36d48.fsf@telefonica.net> <831vjrptha.fsf@gnu.org> <87einr63b6.fsf@telefonica.net> <83y6lzo9e7.fsf@gnu.org> <871vjr750o.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <83tywnnq34.fsf@gnu.org> <873a475bsr.fsf@telefonica.net> <87ocmu7x9c.fsf@red-bean.com> <87zl6crij4.fsf@red-bean.com> <87hbsifdsr.fsf@telefonica.net> <87d435sn0b.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1259339678 32021 80.91.229.12 (27 Nov 2009 16:34:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:34:38 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Richard Stallman To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Nov 27 17:34:31 2009 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 1NE3m8-00074j-Pg for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:34:29 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35982 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NE3m8-0004uZ-94 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:34:28 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NE3m2-0004tv-CE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:34:22 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NE3lx-0004tE-0Y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:34:21 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=53680 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NE3lw-0004t6-Tm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:34:16 -0500 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:36577) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NE3lw-0001Sp-L1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:34:16 -0500 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1NE3lr-0006y9-UN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:34:11 +0100 Original-Received: from 141.red-81-38-65.dynamicip.rima-tde.net ([81.38.65.141]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:34:11 +0100 Original-Received: from ofv by 141.red-81-38-65.dynamicip.rima-tde.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:34:11 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 29 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 141.red-81-38-65.dynamicip.rima-tde.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:x9JI1oCocpTqPKfuII2wCPHcv6c= X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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:117872 Archived-At: Richard Stallman writes: > The approach currently documented in the > wiki is *reasonably* simple, especially for the beta tester or > occasional contributor of code. > > I find it rather complex, so I will use one of these two simpler > suggestions. I think we should inform people about these options. Much of the confusion comes from the abundance of workflows bzr allows. I'm starting to think that pointing out the existence of alternative workflows only added confusion to the discussion (and I'm guilty of that). Maybe the right approach was to describe a "blessed" workflow on the wiki and behave as if the other approaches didn't exist. This, certainly, would be positive from the pedagogical POV. If there is real interest on using one of those introductory workflows I'll write the documentation, unless someone thinks that having two widely different documents for helping CVS users on the transition will only create more confussion. BTW, I pretend to explain the "bound branch" approach, always emphasizing that is a middle point between CVS and Bazaar and that the user should eventually transition to a fully dVCS practice unless some circumstances are met (the user is always connected and writes simple changes). -- Óscar