[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Git mirrors

From: Stephen J. Turnbull
Subject: Re: Git mirrors
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 19:51:11 +0900

Eli Zaretskii writes:

 > > That's cheating, of course.
 > Are we up to ad hominem yet?

Of course not.  Look up "ad hominem".

 > The policy was explained many times.  Richard just explained it
 > again.

No, he didn't.  He stated it, said he thinks this is the right thing,
and he sees no reason to change.  But nobody has presented an argument
in this thread for why choosing GNU over good is good for GNU, or even
why there needs to be Just One GNU-Sanctified application for each
category.  One gets the impression that free software lacking the GNU
label somehow is, uh, "less helpful" to the free software movement
than GNU software is.  But that seems to me to be a rather strange
point of view.  Software doesn't help movements, people do, and the
GNU System can (and does) include any free software it finds useful.
Friendly competition between bzr and git within the GNU System would
be unfortunate (mostly for bzr ;-), but it would (IMO YMMV) make the
GNU System as a whole stronger, just as the presence of both RMail and
Gnus in Emacs makes Emacs stronger.

OTOH, I don't see any real support for the GNU Project in the Bazaar
project; they certainly don't prefer GTK+ over Qt for their GUI, for
example.  AFAICS there are few Emacs users there, and I don't see them
participating here in improving vc.el support for Bazaar.  Etc, etc.
AFAICS the support for GNU is two mentions of the GNU project on the
Bazaar home page.  Maybe they're contributing substantially in other
ways (money to the FSF etc), but nobody has said so, and it's not
obvious to me (and I do follow Bazaar channels).

 > Witness the fact that this time, no one even tried to claim that bzr
 > performance is bad.  My conclusion is that technical factors no longer
 > matter.  It's a religious argument.

That last sentence is true (modulo religious ~ political), and given
that, failure to present technical argument is no evidence of
nonexistence of technical argument.  But now is not the time and here
is not the place....

 > > Eli, if you want to make absolutist arguments like that, start
 > > writing in the propositional calculus.  If you want to continue
 > > in English, then don't be silly.
 > Are we at ad hominem yet?

No, not even on the same continent.

reply via email to

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