From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Bozhidar Batsov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req. Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 20:40:40 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20140102095347.6834E381D0C@snark.thyrsus.com> <87fvp6bdd9.fsf_-_@ktab.red-bean.com> <83wqiixqbb.fsf@gnu.org> <20140102172804.GB13245@thyrsus.com> <83vby2xo6x.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1133447462620704ef01217d X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1388688043 17404 80.91.229.3 (2 Jan 2014 18:40:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 18:40:43 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eric Raymond , Karl Fogel , emacs-devel To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 02 19:40:49 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 1VynCL-0003wN-5y for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 02 Jan 2014 19:40:49 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46573 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VynCK-0006IW-Qg for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 02 Jan 2014 13:40:48 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55790) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VynCH-0006IR-1G for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Jan 2014 13:40:46 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VynCF-0000Pb-PF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Jan 2014 13:40:44 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-oa0-x22f.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4003:c02::22f]:44143) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VynCD-0000PH-PE; Thu, 02 Jan 2014 13:40:41 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-oa0-f47.google.com with SMTP id k1so15080606oag.6 for ; Thu, 02 Jan 2014 10:40:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=q3OtCSdCK5Z5ey11dy2iaE/UAqpUlkdY6NHvrZuSW7o=; b=fM22Dw3sS8hyE21ZQKcGU9C+p8hkRtzxaF8PTtiBHXVFCi1VrFUVrezBYrUvq2EbnQ iaLX79FIrjktxaSbYaXf3QiHAX7AYBIYB043uwL5UAqZiEncI4udVI4xT0C/kfLvSKIg 1CPjBDymiIaqFC5a6uQxDhv53l+wKvgSfF/D+FmaFzzGfta2o0mpoGSA9OB5HV/3TXc/ krrLKFjb3P1iOGbZbakw8xrgH2iNTVJir+RowARNfVVtr5vN8FclDakB0I+IzPabvmEk ik7h9hP/mMjB7ecUnOtPGKTc54YDTcycMQcP44t1intEuLJcKGU3IJ/uuyYUVg5iI7RW 6YKg== X-Received: by 10.60.43.193 with SMTP id y1mr56157845oel.15.1388688040942; Thu, 02 Jan 2014 10:40:40 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.76.109.98 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 10:40:40 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <83vby2xo6x.fsf@gnu.org> X-Google-Sender-Auth: bTbg92fRuSHtk_Guzh4ASaWyuEw X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:4003:c02::22f 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:167062 Archived-At: --001a1133447462620704ef01217d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 2 January 2014 19:56, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 12:28:04 -0500 > > From: "Eric S. Raymond" > > Cc: Karl Fogel , emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > > Eli Zaretskii : > > > I love bzr and hate git. I hope Emacs will not switch from bzr in my > > > lifetime, not to git anyway. > > > > I can understand hating git; the UI is pretty nasty, and there is at > least > > a colorable argument that containerlessness is a bug. I use git in spite > > of its defects, not because I don't know they're there. > > I use git, too. That's why I hate it, not because I've read about it > in some blog. > > > I don't understand loving bzr; my experiences with it have been > unpleasant. > > I would be interested to hear your apologia for it. > > I don't know where to begin. In a nutshell, it is simple to use, yet > powerful enough to give me several important workflows, and an easy > way to fix any mistakes I happen to make (although lately there are > almost none). It works on Unix and on Windows alike, and does both > seamlessly. Try running bzr with Python 3 for instance... Probably this is never going to happen. I took quite some time for bzr to become compatible with Python 2.7. Git works pretty well on Windows these days, but admitted this was not the situation few years ago. > The UI is orders of magnitude simpler and easier to grasp > that that of git. Is this so? Many things in bzr seem like black magic to me. Such assertions are extremely subjective, of course. > The documentation, while it can use some serious > improvement, is nevertheless orders of magnitude more clear than git's > man pages, which seem to have been written by some math professor who > can produce rigorous formal papers, but doesn't have the slightest > idea how to write useful and efficient user documentation. > I think the git man pages are pretty decent and the online docs are superb. > > And of course, everything is similar but subtly different from bzr, to > the point that I need to consult my notes on every step, for fear of > making a mistake. The switch from CVS to bzr was very simple by > comparison, even though the d in dVCS did require some mind shift. > I have the same problem using bzr - as everything is different from git in subtle and not so subtle ways. > > > Mind you, I think opposing git adoption is like trying to stop the tide > > from coming in, at this point (and have my own mixed feelings about > that). > > You probably don't know me well enough, if you are surprised by my > trying to stop the tide. > bzr has some pretty serious weaknesses - its conflict resolution mechanism is terrible for instance. On the Emacs side of things - git users can benefit from the power of magit and with bzr we have only vc-dir to work with. I think this is a tide not worth fighting. I had some problems years ago migrating from SVN (and the associated mindset) to git, but once I grokked git I've never looked back. --001a1133447462620704ef01217d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 2= January 2014 19:56, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 12:28:04 -0500
> From: "Eric S. Raymond" <esr@thyrsus.com>
> Cc: Karl Fogel <kfogel@red-b= ean.com>, emacs-devel@gnu.org=
>
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>= :
> > I love bzr and hate git. =C2=A0I hope Emacs will not switch from = bzr in my
> > lifetime, not to git anyway.
>
> I can understand hating git; the UI is pretty nasty, and there is at l= east
> a colorable argument that containerlessness is a bug. =C2=A0I use git = in spite
> of its defects, not because I don't know they're there.

I use git, too. =C2=A0That's why I hate it, not because I've = read about it
in some blog.

> I don't understand loving bzr; my experiences with it have been un= pleasant.
> I would be interested to hear your apologia for it.

I don't know where to begin. =C2=A0In a nutshell, it is simple to= use, yet
powerful enough to give me several important workflows, and an easy
way to fix any mistakes I happen to make (although lately there are
almost none). =C2=A0It works on Unix and on Windows alike, and does both seamlessly. =C2=A0

Try running bzr with Pyt= hon 3 for instance... Probably this is never going to happen. I took quite = some time for=C2=A0
bzr to become compatible with Python 2.7. Git= works pretty well on Windows these days, but admitted this was not the sit= uation
few years ago.=C2=A0
=C2=A0
The UI is orders of magnitude simpler and easier to grasp
that that of git. =C2=A0

Is this so? Many t= hings in bzr seem like black magic to me. Such assertions are extremely sub= jective, of course.
=C2=A0
The documentation, while it can use some serious
improvement, is nevertheless orders of magnitude more clear than git's<= br> man pages, which seem to have been written by some math professor who
can produce rigorous formal papers, but doesn't have the slightest
idea how to write useful and efficient user documentation.
=

I think the git man pages are pretty decent and the onl= ine docs are superb.=C2=A0
=C2=A0

And of course, everything is similar but subtly different from bzr, to
the point that I need to consult my notes on every step, for fear of
making a mistake. =C2=A0The switch from CVS to bzr was very simple by
comparison, even though the d in dVCS did require some mind shift.

I have the same problem using bzr - as everythi= ng is different from git in subtle and not
so subtle ways.
=C2=A0

> Mind you, I think opposing git adoption is like trying to stop the tid= e
> from coming in, at this point (and have my own mixed feelings about th= at).

You probably don't know me well enough, if you are surprised by m= y
trying to stop the tide.

bzr has some p= retty serious weaknesses - its conflict resolution mechanism is terrible fo= r instance.
On the Emacs side of things - git users can benefit f= rom the power of magit and with bzr we have only vc-dir to work with.=C2=A0=
I think this is a tide not worth fighting. I had some problems years a= go migrating from SVN (and the associated mindset) to
git, but on= ce I grokked git I've never looked back.

--001a1133447462620704ef01217d--