From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: base Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 01:46:03 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20100822120642.GA1794@muc.de> <87bp8uzu9d.fsf@mithlond.arda> <871v9o7dmf.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87wrrg5rzg.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87r5ho5gyr.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87hbij6hib.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87k4nf7ezq.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <878w3v7dd2.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <83wrrfmljv.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1282715177 27190 80.91.229.12 (25 Aug 2010 05:46:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 05:46:17 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Miles Bader Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Aug 25 07:46:16 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 1Oo8oQ-0007j0-Ba for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 07:46:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35488 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Oo8oP-0002qq-Cm for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 01:46:13 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=60674 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Oo8oH-0002ql-Tb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 01:46:05 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Oo8oG-0000RD-HK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 01:46:05 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:37783) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Oo8oG-0000R8-9O for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 01:46:04 -0400 Original-Received: from eliz by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Oo8oF-00048O-Bm; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 01:46:03 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Miles Bader on Wed, 25 Aug 2010 12:44:23 +0900) 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:129190 Archived-At: > From: Miles Bader > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > Reply-To: Miles Bader > System-Type: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu > Blat: Foop > Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 12:44:23 +0900 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > I think you simply don't like bzr, so you are inventing imaginary > > problems that are present in it, but absent in other dVCSs. > > I don't like bzr -- but it's not for no reason. These problems are > certainly not "imaginary." In that case, we will have to disagree. I don't find bzr fitting the description of "being inconsistent, complicated, and confusing, with no simple mental model for users to latch onto", any more than other dVCSs out there. I can understand how it could be confusing if you come from another dVCS with similar commands that have subtly different semantics, but that problem exists no matter what tools you are switching from and to. Other than that, the most popular commands are neither inconsistent, nor complicated or confusing. You will need to work hard to convince me otherwise, because I became a happy user (well, except for the speed...) just a couple of months after installing bzr. For that matter, I don't find the bzr docs worse than that of git or others. They are both essentially a collection of man pages with little or no glue to bind them into a coherent manual that could be read and understood by a relative novice. You may say that git man pages are well written, and I might agree, but since when well-written man pages are accepted as good documentation? That could pass in 1980s, but its IMO ridiculous to claim that this is "documentation" in the year 2010. (Yes, I know about user-manual.html, but it's (a) generally unavailable as part of the installation, and (b) is again a cookbook style hodgepodge of recipes without any explanations to glue them together. It doesn't even define its terms -- and no, the Glossary doesn't count.) Of course, the bzr docs are no better -- which is precisely my point: there's nothing better or worse in usability in either dVCS.