[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: patch vs. overwrite in bzr

From: Bastien
Subject: Re: patch vs. overwrite in bzr
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2012 11:15:11 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.94 (gnu/linux)

Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:

>     As I see it, the main reason for Org to use a separate repository
>     is to gather an active community around a central place.
>     Regular Org testers don't want to rebuild Emacs each time they have 
>     to test a new feature in Org.
> Doesn't bzr allow them to do all the same things while
> using the Emacs repository?

Yes, but it is more complicated for most users.

>     There is no legal reason for not using the Emacs repository as the
>     canonical repository for Org.  Just a practical one: doing so would
>     force us to maintain the canonical Org repository in Emacs *and* 
>     another repository for things that are useful to Org and that cannot
>     be part of Emacs.
> I am concerned that this practice is harmful.
> Would we want these things to be part of Emacs?
> If not, then it isn't a problem.

For some of these things, we want them in Emacs.  For others we don't
want them in Emacs.  For some we simply don't know.

For things we want to be in Org's core and then in GNU Emacs, having 
a separate contrib/ repository is a way to give everyone access to code
from authors that signed the FSF papers but whose papers are not yet
processed by the FSF.

For other things, having them in Org's repo makes sense, because it 
is a central place for anything related to Org.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]