Re: DVCSes, bug trackers, and GNUness

[Karl Fogel]

Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso <address@hidden> writes:
>2012/4/25 Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>:
>>> Shouldn't we switch to Savannah and fix it?  Isn't that what we're
>>> supposed to do about bzr?  Why isn't there an executive decision to
>>> prefer the GNU package?
>>
>> I'd rather not discuss the Bzr decision.
>
>No, let's. Because I know you're tired of it, and I know why you are:
>It's the decision everyone hated but taken only because of GNUness.
>
>I want a similar decision for the BTS. If it's about GNUness, then
>stop using debbugs. Technical merits don't matter, right? That's what
>everyone said about bzr. So, if technical merits don't matter, I want
>you to force everyone to stop using debbugs, no matter how painful it
>is, and to start working with me on fixing Savane.
>
>Be consistent. Either do it for all of Emacs infrastructure or none.
>Don't be selective about what gets the GNU stamp of approval and what
>doesn't.

That's not an accurate characterization of the Bzr decision.  This is
based just on my memory, but if you want to check this in the archives
I'm pretty sure they'll match up.

No one ever said that technical merits don't matter.  What several
people, including Richard, said was that all other things being equal --
or close enough to equal -- then Emacs should go with the GNU project.
That criterion was certainly met with Bzr.

If Bzr had required a heavy investment of development before it would be
meet the technical needs of the Emacs project, then the decision would
have been different.  But it already met the needs, so that issue didn't
come up.  (As it happens, it's gotten even better since then, so the
"all other things being equal" has slowly come closer to just "equal".)

I am not defending the decision to use Bzr.  I'm merely explaining that
it was made on a different basis than the one you claim above.  No
principle was in play that would imply we must also choose Savane now if
we want to be consistent.

-Karl