From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Juanma Barranquero" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs Bazaar repository Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:42:44 +0100 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> <87wsnzi7z0.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1205919787 27634 80.91.229.12 (19 Mar 2008 09:43:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:43:07 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Emacs Devel To: Bastien Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 19 10:43:31 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 1JbupV-0003mf-8k for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:43:29 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Jbuou-0007di-K7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 05:42:52 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Jbuoq-0007dd-6f for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 05:42:48 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Jbuon-0007d3-Tu for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 05:42:47 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Jbuon-0007d0-Ov for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 05:42:45 -0400 Original-Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.176]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Jbuon-0007bK-85 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 05:42:45 -0400 Original-Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id k34so368258wah.10 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 02:42:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; 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=e9uIOIhlJGlylSJTmc0PJZV+ysrwGgo8Li2StrvNL3Q=; b=gfU3Mw9GM1Yw9c+vWO9m2VphtBqu/2ZxmRZT/98o9nZ7BNU0nYGIg/NO7Zfzuy3meSlXC2ZXfKwMvkGnFwcH70hsel59Pwd3Y3AuS1DkrRavYAec1VcE0PsYSptjfMYRqAc8GlpTp6MzBURGZIJC1xDm1hK+hYAk/6BsAhnJoBg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=PZvcI/6FtZfWtTQyCTtrSOj93MYzQphEYyoQjnWLSMdEPWXym81Hmvq4vL53aVgZsidwRO/iCyJou0R94kyFITx9+3BFwzBKyd8YVTn1ZvFSdjv3k6S/dt0kRwz7CkqFtl9jaCDHG0zdgrYmv3gNKv9mf7hBeMrhkZ58RsWTklk= Original-Received: by 10.115.79.1 with SMTP id g1mr917357wal.2.1205919764296; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 02:42:44 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.114.166.20 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 02:42:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87wsnzi7z0.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> 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:92965 Archived-At: On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 6:44 AM, Bastien wrote: > The assumption in the discussion so far has been namely this one: it is > possible to use a dVCS instead of the current CVS without switching to a > new project workflow. Even better: most dVCS are so flexible that you > can adapt your project workflow _after_ you start using one of them. This is one assumption. The other one is that all dVCS (or at least, the three or four "major" ones) are largely equivalent. Both seem to be false at this moment. > This would mean that some core developers have access to all the code, > and need to agree about when bzr is good enough, and other developers > are free to use whatever they want, provided that they send patches in > the form that the core developers prefer. > > I guess at most 25% of the current 120 developers would need to have > access to all the code. The rest would be responsible for a limited > part -- either a large directory like Gnus or a single Elisp file. I don't think I agree. Until now the Emacs model has been that everyone with write access is trusted to display some common sense, and it has worked quite well. Limiting who can write to the canonical repository and establishing that kind of hierarchy seems like fixing a non-existent problem. As you say, it is a social issue. If I do a pervasive change in ido or cua, I *will* send it to Kim, for example; but I don't want to have to pass through someone to fix a typo or correct a silly oversight. Let's not create bureaucracy until we know we need it. > It's strange that the discussion about bzr > is just a technical one Which technical discussion? Juanma