[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Josh
Subject: Re: On the subject of Git, Bazaar, and the future of Emacs development
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 13:27:41 -0700

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Allen S. Rout <address@hidden> wrote:
> I'm a 20-year lover of Emacs, though only the most negligible
> contributor.  It might be appropriate for my two cents to be ignored by
> this assemblage, but here it is.

Two more cents from another casual contributor: though I have
completed the copyright assignment paperwork and made a couple of
commits to the trunk, my experience in getting my Bzr environment set
up and pushing those commits was burdensome enough that I've been
reluctant to go through that process again in order to commit the
handful of other improvements and bug fixes that are now locked away
in my init file and thus of no use to anyone but me and people with
whom I share the code directly.  I personally would contribute more if
the Emacs source code were managed by Git, not because it is best
technically -- which indeed it may not be as Jordi so often asserts :)
-- but because it's familiar to me and thus I'd have more time
available to improve Emacs instead of battling an unfamiliar, niche,
seemingly moribund VCS.

Based on numerous comments that I've seen in #emacs over the years, I
suspect that many other casual and potential contributors are of like
mind and are less engaged with Emacs development as they might be were
Emacs to use a more mainstream VCS.  It seems to me that Emacs and the
GNU project as a whole would be best served by making it as easy as
possible for newcomers to join our community, and that migrating to
Git would go a long way toward doing so.

> The "maintained" state of a project is not determined by response to a
> single bug, but by ongoing availability and responsiveness.   Waiting
> for maintainer interest to decay again so that the situation is again
> unambiguous is IMO a waste of time.  A 5 year sample (the conversation
> from March 2008) to now seems sufficient rope.


reply via email to

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