Re: Emacs Bazaar repository

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 6:44 AM, Bastien <address@hidden> 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