Re: Git mirrors

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 04:39, Óscar Fuentes <address@hidden> wrote:

> Your irony detector is badly broken, Juanma. Call 112 before it is too
> late :-)

Unnecessary, I think. I can detect the irony in asking for a GNU
Solitaire, but there's no irony in the fact that you're using reductio
ad absurdum to put (d)VCSs in the same package that other trivial
toosl, when VCSs are in the same category that compilers, linkers,
run-time libraries and text editors. That's what I'm answering to.

> The existence of GNU make (or GNU bzr) does not immediately imply that
> other tools with similar or overlapping functionality can't be more
> appropriate for certain applications.

No, but AFAIK, there's no other official GNU build system (I'm talking
now about make and the autotools, of course). Not cmake, scons,
(b)jam, ant...

> Let's suppose that the mercurial guys submit their tool to
> GNU. So now what?

There would likely be two "official GNU DVCS". You're the one talking
about exclusion. The preference of Bazaar over git is *because* git
does not promote the free software ideas. If Linus, or Junio Hamano,
or whomever has the power to do it, were to turn it into an official
GNU package, I bet GNU would not reject it.

> So what? Is it good then to promote a package that is being largely
> ignored by the community as if the words "official GNU whatever" were
> magical?

Is Bazaar largely ignored by the community? Is git's popularity a
consequence of it being "technically superior" (assuming it is, which
I don't believe), even with the worst documentation I've ever had the
displeasure to read, or because it is the brainchild of fan favorite
Linus Torvalds?

> The developers out there are choosing their tools based on
> their own best judgment (let's hope it is a sensible one)

You say that, and then, a few lines afterwards, you argument that the
users are going to use Bazaar because they "trust GNU".

> but GNU just
> advertises a package as if it were the best possible option just because
> someone filled some papers. Silly.

Two comments: 1) it does not advertise it as if it were the "best
possible option", just the recommended one. They also recommend
gNewSense. 2) "best" is a very loaded metric; as the gNewSense example
shows, "more free" counts.

> C'mon, Juanma. We are on emacs-devel. When the bug reporting system was
> discussed, people threatened with not using the system or stopping their
> contribution to Emacs altogether in case the system lacked X or required
> Y (an email interface or a webforms interface, to be precise.)

I think you exagerate a bit. I remember RMS saying that an e-mail
interface was required, because he doesn't use a web browser. As for
the rest, of course people fought for their preferred systems and/or
interfaces, but I don't think we've had many losses because of the
choice made. Trust me, I do not like debbugs a bit, and still here am
I.

> Would you keep contributing your free time to a project if they
> required something that makes you feel uncomfortable?

That's a loaded question. I would *not* contribute to a project that
required something that made me uncomfortable, but few things in a
free software project, other than the use of Java, will make me
umconfortable enough to keep me from contributing, if the project
interests me. Certainly, choice of VCS or build system would not.

> And install the tool, and re-learn the commands every now and then
> because you don't hack on Emacs every day, and cope with glitches
> (apparent or real) on a unfamiliar tool, and use interfaces that makes
> you cringe, specially when you remember how good are the ones available
> next door...

Again, I think you're exaggerating. I reinstall bzr to be up-to-date
because I want, not because I'm forced to, and I haven't needed to
reinstall Subversion or git for a long while. It seems like you're
arguing that anything new is a big challenge that the user cannot
overcome. If so, they also will not be able or willing to dive into
the Emacs innards to fix problems or extend it. And if they happen to
do it anyway, but they find Bazaar so tasteless, they can just make a
diff with their tool of choice and send it as is.

> Now, we should ask the Savannah admins why bzr has problems while git
> works rock-solid.

It wasn't a bzr problem. It was the Savannah hackers, which lacked
resources and took a long time to upgrade the server.

> Precisely, Emacs did not a favor to bzr choosing it when it was not up
> to the task.

This is difficult to know until you try it, and the signals coming
from the Bazaar developers were positive.

> That's the typical consequence of short-sighted politics.

Circular reasoning detected.

> The git mirror serves me perfectly. And when I say "perfectly"
> I mean "much better than bzr".

Do you regularly use bzr, to know that git servers you much better?

> If GNU decided to pull the plug on the
> git mirror I'll be inconvenienced. Just that. Is it necessary?

That's not the point, because I don't think anyone has talked of
"pulling the plug". Eli said it clearly: the onus of maintaining it
should not be on the Emacs developers, but in those wanting the
mirror.

    Juanma