From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Return Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 17:06:10 +0900 Message-ID: <87vd34vgct.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <87mxojwu15.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87k4jnweng.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1291795667 29823 80.91.229.12 (8 Dec 2010 08:07:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 08:07:47 +0000 (UTC) Cc: MON KEY , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Samuel Bronson Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Dec 08 09:07:42 2010 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 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PQF3t-000612-Hp for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 09:07:41 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44077 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PQF3t-0002Zc-1N for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 03:07:41 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=38634 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PQF3n-0002ZN-RG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 03:07:36 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PQF3m-0001Ka-Ip for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 03:07:35 -0500 Original-Received: from imss12.cc.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.254.161]:49413) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PQF3m-0001KJ-2u for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 03:07:34 -0500 Original-Received: from imss12.cc.tsukuba.ac.jp (imss12.cc.tsukuba.ac.jp [127.0.0.1]) by postfix.imss71 (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43E962AF543; Wed, 8 Dec 2010 17:07:31 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: from mgmt1.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (unknown [130.158.97.223]) by imss12.cc.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 359FC2AF542; Wed, 8 Dec 2010 17:07:31 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mgmt1.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33BC53FA04FB; Wed, 8 Dec 2010 17:07:31 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 700C111F034; Wed, 8 Dec 2010 17:06:10 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: VM undefined under 21.5 (beta29) "garbanzo" ed3b274cc037 XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.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:133530 Archived-At: Samuel Bronson writes: > when they describe software in these parts, but note that here they > describe the *control* over a *particular* source tree, which is a > distinctly different thing, Nobody has control over "the" source tree in open source or free software. What individuals can control are disk space and maintainer time, and perhaps "mind share". > though many effects may be similar. FUD. For heaven's sake, we all use dVCSes, so everybody clearly has "control" over "the" source tree in the sense of disk space. And for distribution, there are dozens of zero-fee outlets. Within the free software and open source communities[1], only mind share matters, but that is independent of "control of a source tree". Richard, Linus, Theo, and I, inter alia, have some say over mind share because of past service to the community, present effort, and the assessment of our abilities by our communities. Not because of our control of certain disk space, but because people *want to use* the trees on the disks we control. N.B. I make that comparison deliberately in all humility[sic], because it demonstrates that there is a continuum of "control" over mind share (and it's multidimensional, too). Some are more equal than others. There are reasons for that (perhaps none that justify my own exalted position -- and so it goes :-). > Probably, in the case of add-on packages, it does not help that the > XEmacs packaging machinery is only intended for use with packages > stored in its own CVS tree... That is false. If somebody wants to use our packaging machinery for out of tree packaging, they are certainly welcome to do so. VM does it, for example. I among others would spend some effort to make that easier; I know it's rather awkward at the moment. The point is that what people have consistently asked for is *not* that the machinery be usable out of tree. It turns out that lots of people have figured out how to make the machinery work out of tree. What they want is for *us to distribute* packages made out of tree. That's quite different, and I don't see any way it's going to happen, any more than Emacs Lisp is going to become Common Lisp without convincing Richard of the need. If someone doesn't like that, all they need to change it is mind share. They most likely have everything else already, and if not, it's easy to acquire. Footnotes: [1] The point being that outside of those communities, control over trees is indeed possible and powerful. In fact, the GNU GPL exploits that power.