Re: base

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org>
> Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 13:33:46 +0900
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> Frank Schmitt writes:
> 
>  > I don't think this is fair. Mercurial, which seems to be one of the
>  > two top DVCS at the moment, has great Windows support.
> 
> Python's transition to Mercurial is blocked on Windows support, and
> only that.  How do you claim that as "great" support?

This seems to be about the EOL conversion issue?  If so, I can hardly
see how that could be used to rebuff the claim of "great Windows
support": EOL conversion by a VCS is one of the greater evils of all
times, in my book.  I was so happy to hear that bzr doesn't by
default.  You don't want even to begin learning how much trouble that
conversion caused me when we used CVS.

I don't use Mercurial except to clone an occasional repository, so I
really have no idea whether its support of Windows is "great".  But it
sounds extreme to me to say that EOL conversion (which AFAIU is
already solved in latest hg) is evidence that this support is not good
enough.

Anyway, the EOL conversion doesn't seem to be relevant to Emacs, which
happily supports Unix EOLs.  I have no idea why EOL conversion support
was so important to Python developers, but that's their funeral.