Re: MAINTAINERS file

[Jeremy Maitin-Shepard]

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

[snip]

>> (In fact, to the extent
>> that using an inferior tool may interfere with Emacs development, the
>> Emacs project, and consequently free software as a whole, is harmed.)

> I'm sure you don't want to claim that bzr is "inferior".  (If you do,
> please provide some evidence.)  No one here will want to use an
> inferior tool.  The issue is, all things being approximately equal,
> which tool to choose.

I'm not claiming that bzr is necessarily inferior; I don't know enough
about bzr to be sure.  What I'm claiming is that it _might_ be inferior,
and it seems the decision to use it was based on largely on it being
"GNU" and seeming to be at least "decent".  In particular, it seems that
the decision to use it was not based on any actual experience in using
bzr or any alternatives.

One thing that git has going for it over the alternatives is a very
large and active developer base.

>> Favoring projects that have the "GNU" label suggests a real motivation
>> of merely promoting the "GNU" name.
>> 
>> You may argue that promoting the "GNU" name is important for promoting
>> free software, but I don't buy that.

> This is a misunderstanding: we are not talking about names or labels.
> Being a GNU package means much more than just a word in a name.

Sure, being a GNU package means that the package is consistent with free
software ideology, but it is important to realize that _not_ being a GNU
package does not mean that it is inconsistent with free software
ideology.  In particular, you can't claim that using bzr will somehow
help the free software movement more than using Git or Mercurial will.

-- 
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard