From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Moving to bzr? Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:50:17 -0500 Message-ID: References: <871vviif6s.fsf@xemacs.org> <87mye6xnsr.fsf@xemacs.org> <87y6xpvyz6.fsf@xemacs.org> <87zli4jcc4.fsf@workhorse.earlhome> <87vdsrjcco.fsf@workhorse.earlhome> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1231465834 3355 80.91.229.12 (9 Jan 2009 01:50:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 01:50:34 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Juanma Barranquero , Eli Zaretskii , "Stephen J. Turnbull" , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Jason Earl Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jan 09 02:51:45 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 1LL6XI-0004T3-GH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2009 02:51:44 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51352 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LL6W2-0003UU-M8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:50:26 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LL6Vz-0003UP-74 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:50:23 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LL6Vx-0003UD-QV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:50:21 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=36791 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LL6Vx-0003UA-HA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:50:21 -0500 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.pppoe.ca ([206.248.154.182]:3780 helo=ironport2-out.teksavvy.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LL6Vv-00028G-Cr; Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:50:19 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhUFABY8ZklFxJt//2dsb2JhbACBbM1chXWBaQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.37,236,1231131600"; d="scan'208";a="32054825" Original-Received: from 69-196-155-127.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([69.196.155.127]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP; 08 Jan 2009 20:50:18 -0500 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id B60E586E5; Thu, 8 Jan 2009 20:50:17 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87vdsrjcco.fsf@workhorse.earlhome> (Jason Earl's message of "Wed, 07 Jan 2009 09:43:35 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. 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:107714 Archived-At: >> Great. So we have a good enough repository now? > I would feel more comfortable with a resounding "yes" if more of the > Emacs hackers took a look at my emacs-merges repository, but I believe > that is the case. Yes, that is indeed a problem. It takes a while to do that, and the best way to do it, is to just use it for a while. But if it's never updated, it's difficult to "use of it for a while". > I will spend some time today building an up to date version. IIUC, it will be a complete new tree, right? With no way to "pull" from the old to the new one? >>> The problem is the conversion is presently a one time only affair. I >>> don't have a way to keep the newly created repository in synch with >>> CVS. If Bazaar were to become the master repository, then the switch >>> could be made. >> Yes, indeed, keeping the repository up to date may not be necessary. > If that is the case, then the migration is likely to be a lot easier > (for me anyway). Yes, well of course, OTOH for us it is likely to be harder. >> Right, we'd want something for that indeed. It doesn't need to be >> done at the same time, but it'd be much better if we had some plan for >> how to do it. > I've done a little work on this, but if someone wants to help, it > certainly wouldn't hurt my feelings :). Arch certainly has an advantage > here in that its metadata is easy to poke at. Feel free to report your findings, or to "experiment out loud". > At the very least I think we should wait for the 1.9 format variant (or > one of its ancestors) to become the default. You mean we should use the 1.9 format? I guess that would be fine, although IIUC the format of a repository can be changed after the fact, so it doesn't seem crucial. Stefan