Re: GNU Emacs is on Bazaar now.

[Óscar Fuentes]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden> writes:

> Óscar Fuentes writes:
>
>  > > And what happens if he actually uses a feature branch?
>  > 
>  > Then he should use the adequate workflow for a feature branch.
>
> People DO NOT DO WHAT THEY SHOULD DO.  If they did, we wouldn't be
> having this discussion.  Instead, they look for shortcuts, for
> convenience, for the familiar.

I think that some people is looking for shortcuts because they find the
distributed workflow unnecessarily complex. Either they fail to
appreciate the benefits of the added complexity or they think that those
benefits are of no value for them.

>  > > I think there's a lot of room for icky things[tm] to happen if
>  > > the bzr-update-and-work-on-trunk discipline is mixed with the
>  > > push-through-a-dedicated-trunk-mirror-branch discipline.
>  > 
>  > Can you describe some of those icky things?
>
> No.  If I could describe them, I wouldn't be so adamant about a
> SINGLE, fairly simple, flexible, socially adapted workflow that works
> for almost everybody.  I'd figure out a workflow that is more adapted
> to existing Emacs usage, with a straightforward upgrade path to "full
> tilt boogie" exploitation of advanced DVCS features.  Wouldn't you?
>
> Why do I expect them?  Feel free to review the "how do I get myself
> out of here" threads on any of the DVCS user lists if you must have
> examples.  There are plenty on address@hidden

In short, there are "icky things" that you can't describe but are
extensively discussed on the mailing lists. Oh well.

As said on the past, my description of the centralized way is targeted
to *reduce* the problems *some* emacs hackers can experience on the
transition to bzr, and allow them to keep doing the really important
thing: keep contributing. You insist on that having the simpler workflow
documented actually creates problems, but so far failed to mention a
single serious issue with it.

Personally, if I were a hacker doing quick contributions to emacs (the
sort of thing that ends on one single commit), I would use the
centralized workflow.

-- 
Óscar