Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

Post by mattengi » Thu, Jan 02, 2014, 11:47 PM UTC

lmm wrote: post #234

Crito wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Set up a repo on a server somewhere and declare it to be the "central repo". You and the other developer pull/push from that repo only. In other words, ignore some of git's capabilities and treating git like SVN. Just because you can pull from your teammates, does not mean that you have to. I've been on a team that transitioned from SVN to Perforce, the again to Git, keeping the same workflow all the way through. It…

> Set up a repo on a server somewhere and declare it to be the "central repo" That's the situation I described. We still have the problems I mentioned: sometimes we commit without pushing (particularly because we sometimes didn't set a branch to be remote-tracking and didn't realize this), and sometimes our branches are behind our copy-of-the-remote-branch because we pulled different branches (which leads to bogus me…

Post by ams6110 » Thu, Jan 02, 2014, 11:59 PM UTC

stiff wrote: post #116

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 think this is more inertia than anything else. It is pretty obvious that Stallman isn't the easiest person to talk to, but he has consistently put huge amount of efforts into GNU for lots of years, and, whatever he did as the maintainer, seems to have worked out pretty much in the end. If there was anyone as active in the Emacs community today as Stallman was in his prime, they could easily push through changes des…

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 12:12 AM UTC

Crito wrote: post #220

sparkie wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if any of those guys would ever contribute to emacs anyway, unless we rewrite it in javascript.

If the Emacs/Guile thing ever gets off the ground properly, ECMAScript/Emacs may become a possibility.

Post by logjam » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 12:18 AM UTC

malandrew wrote: post #262

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…

"When questioned, he says that there's too much at stake to abandon bzr if it can be avoided at all." The big difference between then and now is that this time you have a very competent developer with an exceptional reputation offering to lead the migration. With esr leading things, there is a lot less at risk.

Post by lmm » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 12:42 AM UTC

mattengi wrote: post #261

lmm wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Set up a repo on a server somewhere and declare it to be the "central repo" That's the situation I described. We still have the problems I mentioned: sometimes we commit without pushing (particularly because we sometimes didn't set a branch to be remote-tracking and didn't realize this), and sometimes our branches are behind our copy-of-the-remote-branch because we pulled different branches (which leads to bogus me…

Don't pull origin/master directly into local feature/test branch. Pull into local master then rebase local branch onto it.