Raymond Toy writes:
Is there a reason why the packages haven't moved to an hg repo
In principle, that's the plan.
In practice, it's a much harder problem. First, the technical issues.
It turns out that in CVS it's trivial to use the module function to
stitch together genetically unrelated code trees into a repository
containing a functioning system (here, the build scripts required in
building all actual packages is the "adopted child"). In hg, this is
much harder (modern changeset-oriented VCSes tend not to handle
unrelated code at all in their core features; so far the ways of
handling this -- svn externals, git submodules, Mercurial forests/
I-forget-what-the-newfangled-alternative-to-forests-is-called -- are
all ad-hoc add-ons to the well-designed cores).
Second, the people issues. Everybody knows how to use CVS, even if
they don't like it or are no longer using it themselves. But many of
our external maintainers don't know hg yet; Emacs is using bzr, and
many of them strongly prefer git (as I do, but I have learned to
worked around or avert my eyes from what I consider to be hg's
warts). Even once we have a prototype conversion, we'll still need to
get a substantial fraction of maintainers explicitly on board.
Volunteers welcome, although Michael Sperber seems to have a handle on
where to go next so please talk to him before putting in effort.
XEmacs-Beta mailing list