Re: On the subject of Git, Bazaar, and the future of Emacs development

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Daniel Colascione writes:

 > As I see it, the only other viable candidate is Mercurial, which,
 > while being high-quality, actively-developed free software, lacks
 > the user base of git.  If Mercurial and git are equivalent of
 > technical and ethical grounds,

Evidently, they're not.  Technically, people care about UI, and many
people hate git's.  Ethically, git uses copyleft but most of its
developers are pretty clearly firmly in the open source camp (vs. free
software), and some of its most popular associated tools (GitHub) use
non-free code without apology (although it seems that a lot of people
associated with Linux kernel development don't exactly appreciate the
attitude of GitHub in many respects).

You may not believe either of those outweigh the economic advantages
of git, but you should acknowledge those differences of opinion as
objective facts.