From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: bzr repository ready? Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 01:50:40 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87fx82856l.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87ws1cqqhm.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87skbzqgaj.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87tywcg3to.fsf@red-bean.com> <8e0e71cb0911302239x41517b1g79ed0c523d4a8c0f@mail.gmail.com> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1259995998 8538 80.91.229.12 (5 Dec 2009 06:53:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 06:53:18 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ofv@wanadoo.es, stephen@xemacs.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Karl Fogel Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 05 07:53:11 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 1NGoVy-0000oF-3j for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2009 07:53:10 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49476 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NGoVx-0004ra-Of for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2009 01:53:09 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NGoTg-0003QL-Tm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2009 01:50:48 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NGoTc-0003NC-2W for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2009 01:50:48 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=40477 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NGoTb-0003Mz-Mc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2009 01:50:43 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:48033) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NGoTb-0004fo-Cn for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2009 01:50:43 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1NGoTY-0005Rb-8u; Sat, 05 Dec 2009 01:50:40 -0500 In-reply-to: <8e0e71cb0911302239x41517b1g79ed0c523d4a8c0f@mail.gmail.com> (message from Karl Fogel on Tue, 1 Dec 2009 01:39:12 -0500) 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:118292 Archived-At: You are pushing the Bazaar-knowledgeable people on this list to support a workflow they themselves rarely use, and that they find counterintuitive. I am saying our documentation should be present it prominently as a a legitimate and plausible option. Since "support" means a lot of other things too, I think your paraphrase does not represent what I actually say. (And it's not "more complex". It's different; to It certainly is more complex. Compare how long the documentation of each one is! those who are accustomed to it, it's simpler.) I'm concerned with how much work it is to learn. You are evidently talking about something else, something about what it is like to use once you are accustomed to it. As far as I can tell, all of those working on this migration who actually have experience migrating other people and projects from centralized systems to Bazaar agree that strongly encouraging the dVCS workflow is the best thing to do. "Best" in what sense? Best for whom? It is certainly not best for users like me. It would require us me to take a lot of time to learn things that aren't worth while for us. But there is no reason for the project as a whole to encourage it. The point is not to discourage it. (I've stated the reason before.) We should not push people into learning the complex method if they are doing small changes. And since you already know what you are going to do, There are other people in the same situation who have not read it yet. The CVS-like documentation exists; it is referred to prominently from the top of the dVCS documentation; and the relationship between the two is perfectly clear. I am glad if that is still the case. Someone was talking about trying to hide it so as to put pressure on people to use the distributed method. I want that not to be done.