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: Moving to bzr? Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 13:29:33 +0900 Message-ID: <87y6xpvyz6.fsf@xemacs.org> References: <871vviif6s.fsf@xemacs.org> <87mye6xnsr.fsf@xemacs.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1231216067 20818 80.91.229.12 (6 Jan 2009 04:27:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 04:27:47 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 06 05:28:58 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 1LK3Yh-0006nT-K1 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 06 Jan 2009 05:28:51 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35940 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LK3XS-0005vJ-3Y for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:27:34 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LK3XO-0005v6-1m for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:27:30 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LK3XL-0005t0-8i for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:27:28 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=46740 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LK3XL-0005st-66 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:27:27 -0500 Original-Received: from mtps02.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.224]:42391) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LK3XJ-0004k1-Ez; Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:27:25 -0500 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mtps02.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AF957FFA; Tue, 6 Jan 2009 13:27:23 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C997B12706E; Tue, 6 Jan 2009 13:29:33 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: VM 8.0.12-devo-585 under 21.5 (beta28) "fuki" 83e35df20028+ XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:107628 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: > > I don't think comparison to CVS or Subversion update is relevant, > > In the context of whether or not to switch from CVS to Bzr, it is the > only relevant comparison. Urk. I thought the rules of the game were that that decision has been made? My point is that the timing should be determined by when the developers think bzr is usable. In terms of update, that is likely to be quite independent of the CVS comparison, because "slow update" can be handled in the same way as "often offline".