Re: What a modern collaboration toolkit looks like

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

David Kastrup writes:

 > Using a package is not the same as supporting it: it actually places
 > additional burdens on its developers.  When there are no additional
 > resources moved to them as well, their package has no tangible advantage
 > from this sort of "support".  And when this makes the sitation worse at
 > the "supporting" package, the total situation is a loss for GNU.

But this has become an abstract policy discussion, because I don't
think either is true in the case in point.

bzr is well-endowed with development resources, as it is a mission-
critical part of its maintainer's[1] infrastructure, but small in
comparison to the organization as a whole.  They are not going to
notice additional burden from Emacs's use.  Nor is it going to make
the Emacs development environment worse than continued dependence on
CVS does.  I don't know of any projects that switched from CVS or
Subversion to bzr that ever looked back.


Footnotes: 
[1]  Well, of course the GNU maintainer (is there one/more yet?
couldn't find one) will not be a corporation, but for these purposes
bzr is maintained by Canonical, not by any one person.