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

[Giorgos Keramidas]

On 2013-03-27 14:38, Leo Liu <address@hidden> wrote:
>On 2013-03-27 12:15 +0800, Michael Welsh Duggan wrote:
>> I see these Git versus Bazaar arguments pop up every now and then on
>> this forum.  I must admit my experience with Git has been better than
>> that with Bazaar, but I have to ask, why isn't Mercurial being
>> considered?  From a license perspective, Mercurial is GPLv2+, while
>> Git is GPLv2.  I found Mercurial's command-line UI much easier to
>> learn and understand than Git, and I believe the two are fairly
>> comparable in power.
>
> The longevity of the project is very important. git being used for the
> kernel guarantees its healthy growth for decades to come by then a
> native version system will be built in emacs.
>
> Let's not muddy the water with another tool that is seemingly
> adequate.  BZR was seemingly adequate and was regarded could do the
> job well. Now years later we are back to square one.
>
> I wish we could move directly to a tool that can serve us for a long
> time and have it stayed out of the way of hacking on emacs.

Mercurial is used for Python itself (and quite a few other large
projects), so its longevity is not really a very difficult question.
It will be here for at least as long as Python, which Bazaar also uses.

While there is merit in the idea that we shouldn't muddy the waters with
too many DVCS, it's also arguably a good idea to look at more than one
option if the decision is made to switch away from Bazaar.