Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

lists.gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 317 posts

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#101

Post by sdague »

mikro2nd wrote: post #41

>git won the mindshare war. I regret this - I would have preferred Mercurial, but it too is not looking real healthy these days I confess that my perception of Mercurial is the diametric opposite of the author's. Recently I believe I have seen a modest resurgence of interest in Hg and increased uptake. Am I just seeing this through some peculiar VCS-warped glasses? I believe that much of the popularity of git stems f…

Yes, there are plenty of local maxima, but this is a pretty nice look at the global picture - http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2013/12/19/dvcs-and-git-2013/ - and git definitely won the mindshare war by those numbers.

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#102

Post by krakensden »

zobzu wrote: post #9
Aqwis wrote: post #8

Oddly, both Bazaar, Git and Mercurial were created around March/April 2005. Why the sudden appearance of popular DVCSs around that time, and why did Bazaar fall behind the other two in popularity?

git is used by a bigger project (the kernel), that's mainly why. they're all ok, otherwise, even with their technical differences. github also contributed to amplify the adoption as its makes it really easy to use (even thus people generally use git in a non-distributed way with github) (i do prefer git in usage, tho, but thats subjective i suppose)

And Xorg, and Samba, and Wine, and a bunch of other projects. In retrospect, people overestimate github's impact, I think. "Fast enough for big projects like the kernel" was a big deal.

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#103

Post by dded »

rlpb wrote: post #35
Aqwis wrote: post #8

Oddly, both Bazaar, Git and Mercurial were created around March/April 2005. Why the sudden appearance of popular DVCSs around that time, and why did Bazaar fall behind the other two in popularity?

One thing that git wins for me is interoperability. git's format-patch, send-email, apply and am subcommands make it very easy to interoperate with others using plain text patches on mailing lists for code review, etc. At this stage, isn't a "bzr vs. git vs. hg" question at all. It's just "look, it's a patch". I think this ease and ability to work losslessly with plain text patches gives git a clear advantage over bz…

I'm entirely ignorant of bzr, but I've got to say that this surprises me. We use svn, which certainly works well with patch.

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#104

Post by joelthelion »

mickeyp wrote: post #77
rbanffy wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compared to the decision (and ability) to contribute to Emacs, the choice of DVCS seems to be rather unimportant.

Ten (edit: even five!) years ago I'd agree with you. Back then a source control system was a piece of software you used for keeping a versioned history of your work and to enable you to collaborate with coworkers or friends. It was a tool. Now? It's A Big Deal to a lot of younger developers. It is almost totemic. If it's not Git and (ideally) Github then.. it isn't worth hacking on?

>Now? It's A Big Deal to a lot of younger developers. It is almost totemic. If it's not Git and (ideally) Github then.. it isn't worth hacking on?

Do you really want those guys on your project?

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#105

Post by vezzy-fnord »

blumentopf wrote: post #87
hyperpape wrote: post #83

I went back and looked at the older discussion, and it doesn't paint Stallman very well as the head of a project. He pins the question of whether to keep using bzr not on whether it is good or whether the Emacs developers want it, but on whether it's being "maintained". But then he seems to define maintenance as having fixed a specific bug that's been around for over a year, blocking a point release. He admits that h…

> it doesn't paint Stallman very well as the head of a project Is this news to you? Cf. e.g. http://www.jwz.org/doc/lemacs.html

Not to mention his insistence on GNU Hurd being based on Mach, which pretty much ended up killing the project.

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#106

Post by [deleted] »

michaelt wrote: post #65
praptak wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what happened, basically a huge "I told you so, proprietary software blows." for the Stallmans of this world: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/14/torvalds_attacks_tri...

This is excellent trolling material because you can argue in both directions: It proves proprietary software can't be trusted; and at the same time it proves Open Source is all about free knockoffs of innovations made in proprietary software.

[deleted]

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#107

Post by sixtypoundhound »

Bzr certainly isn't dead.

git has won the mindshare war for mainstream developers, but I've found it to be a useful FOSS alternative for developers forced to use a Windows environment [for business-related reasons, don't laugh..it pays the bills]. Their UI is a bit more intuitive than git's for new users.

Now, if you're a hardcore Linux-stack career dev...get onto git ASAP... but for lesser folks...bzr works just fine...

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#108

Post by dded »

cpach wrote: post #95
hyperpape wrote: post #83

I went back and looked at the older discussion, and it doesn't paint Stallman very well as the head of a project. He pins the question of whether to keep using bzr not on whether it is good or whether the Emacs developers want it, but on whether it's being "maintained". But then he seems to define maintenance as having fixed a specific bug that's been around for over a year, blocking a point release. He admits that h…

I thought RMS had resigned as Emacs’ maintainer? http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2008-02/msg021...

One of the reasons I chose GNU Emacs over XEmacs was a feeling that GNU Emacs will be maintained, even advanced, for as long as RMS has the strength to type. It's his baby.

(There were other reasons, the big one being momentum. XEmacs didn't run on the platform I was on for a long time, so it would have been a switch.)

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#109

Post by mathattack »

stiff wrote: post #18

FWIW, just a few days ago I was browsing through the Emacs Bzr repository - after a full bzr clone, that took ridiculously long as well, a simple bzr blame takes 40-60 seconds to execute locally, and I have an SSD drive, four-core intel i7 and 8GB of RAM. I have never seen this kind of slowness with Git, with any repository size.

Does this make the issue a critique of RMS's management style, or of the FSF licensing that is unable to back out of a failed project?

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#110

Post by rat87 »

dustinupdyke wrote: post #49
EnderMB wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've noticed this, oddly, while my workplace is transitioning to git from Mercurial. A lot of developers using .NET tend to go for Mercurial because a while back it felt a lot nicer to use on Windows. It's why I always preferred using Mercurial. A few .NET shops that use TFP/VSO are moving towards Git for the Visual Studio support, but I've noticed a few Python and PHP developers making the switch to Mercurial. To be…

It seems that most .NET devs prefer something baked straight into Visual Studio and my experience has been that this is part of the problem in getting those teams to migrate to Git, which is most powerful from the command line. Personally, I greatly prefer my source control system to be separate from my development environment or IDE.

Microsoft released a git plugin for VS.
Post reply on HN