From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: dhruva Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs Bazaar repository Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:30:00 +0530 Message-ID: References: <87skyvse7k.fsf@xmission.com> <47DA3601.3040507@arbash-meinel.com> <87r6ecsww7.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <200803180148.m2I1m0dB003724@sallyv1.ics.uci.edu> <87fxuoznk2.fsf@red-bean.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1205834428 29046 80.91.229.12 (18 Mar 2008 10:00:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:00:28 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Karl Fogel , esr@thyrsus.com, Chong Yidong , Stefan Monnier , Emacs Devel To: "Andreas Schwab" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 18 11:00:56 2008 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 1JbYcn-0001e0-Hu for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:00:54 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JbYcD-0007TY-Rc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 06:00:17 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JbYc1-0007QC-8g for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 06:00:05 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JbYbz-0007PP-8W for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 06:00:04 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JbYbz-0007PL-3d for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 06:00:03 -0400 Original-Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.142.189]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JbYby-0005QW-F0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 06:00:02 -0400 Original-Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id a20so1909215tia.10 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 03:00:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=rpVUX7tmm46d3rruzcpFUQhhBFb4M93VraY61WTQgoc=; b=LiILGWNLm6W8g25MiaGZgEptnzsGGQKfjZFCJRARc4ff9gJt4IH4oIoexTBYDhBFxexF4z1G/zmWLn6J7I4qNM5j8zneSFHfdjjCquE5k8/s+a91wbRzx9UpkqvSE1sRbzxtUffDxCb6dirr6plHYvcHy9ejdoaWwFPBQCG6lUo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=NkP5Em8VAB2NYiO70R5SQERdGGxHFQA2TSjLD7Xi5IMLqDyopoEm93+aq41YO0GbRXxlu86vslYOMuq3jS71Jgk89E29rwxTAFhK77zIV2U/NExcIqkvENpUZ6WrumUTPeiZ740NYbEXxbtrAnoXKavn03hA5FoQuZVV/kZ3K9c= Original-Received: by 10.110.39.5 with SMTP id m5mr88948tim.55.1205834400460; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 03:00:00 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.110.3.13 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 03:00:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) 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:92882 Archived-At: Hello, On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Karl Fogel writes: > > > All of the DVCSs seem good. No one marshalled any compelling arguments > > in favor of one versus the other on technical grounds, and all other > > things being equal, RMS (and maybe some others, perhaps including Yidong > > and Stefan?) preferred bzr because it is a GNU project. > > In its current form bzr is not usable for a project of the size of > Emacs. I feel the decision to move to bzr is mainly because it is a GNU project. Every open discussion seems to suggest either GIT or mercurial in the emacs list (and other projects considering a change in SCM too). Either we decide to postpone till bzr is good enough or set a timeline by which all SCM related comparisons can happen and decide. Deciding to move the bzr and then hope for things to improve will be depending too much on HOPE. I just hope it the decision is based on technical facts rather than affiliations and emotions... -dhruva -- Contents reflect my personal views only!