Re: xemacs vs emacs

Robert Widhopf-Fenk writes: There was a long set of such threads on emacs-devel. It's pretty clear that most of the Emacs developers who have a strong preference want git, with a few hg supporters and a few svn supporters. However, these arguments were brushed aside on the grounds that GNU projects should support each other, and of the three GNU VCSes, CVS is what *everybody* wants to get away from, GNU Arch is in a development coma, and GNU Bazaar is really active. The choice is obvious. There have been a number of such threads on xemacs-beta as well. Nobody has really contested that git and hg are good enough, and svn has had support in the past but it's waning. Darcs was a dark horse, but I would veto it on performance and reliability grounds. Monotone, Codeville, GNU Arch, and many others have never really gained any traction. In a way it's a shame about GNU Arch as that would make it much easier to share with SXEmacs. No. bzr was never seriously considered. bzr was recommended to me personally by a Canonical employee, but that was after we were already well down the path to hg or git. BTW, I've had conversations with the Bazaar developers. I'm confident that bazaar will see a lot of improvement in the next few months. I'm dubious whether it can scale to a project like the Linux kernel, but I'm sure it will be usable for Emacsen. No. There was little real discussion; if there really had been an advocate for something other than hg it would have been forced out to xemacs-beta. But in practice we started with the consensus that CVS had to go and that Subversion was not appropriate. Everybody was at least +0.5 on either git or hg -- as long as somebody else did the work.:-) hg was chosen because Mike stepped up to do the work, and even found us a host. He who does the work makes the decisions. _______________________________________________ XEmacs-Beta mailing list XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta