Felipe Contreras [off-list ref] writes:
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Felipe Contreras [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
quoted
So let's go ahead and apply these directly on top of 'master', once
we hear from Emacs folks and they are happy with it. I'll queue it
on 'pu' so that I do not have to go back to the list archive when it
happens.
I already heard that everything seems to be working correctly, except
one feature, the biggest change, which I screwed up with a one-liner
commit. That's why I added a test. Anyway, I've fixed it in my github
branch and in this patch series, and I've told them to try the fix.
Let us know when they make progress on that front.
If Emacs decides to switch to Git and decides to use this version of
remote-bzr for their conversion, or at least a nontrivial group of
developers favor to do so, without seeing concrete technical points
that say remote-bzr is not yet ready (e.g. "the conversion is still
wrong and X, Y and Z needs to be fixed"), that would be a very
welcome solid vote of confidence in favor of us going ahead with
this.
Seems unlikely for political reasons (isn't it always for GNU?), since
RMS is heavily involved in the decision.
I am very aware of that discussion (and the original one when they
decided to use bzr). That is exactly why I said "at least ... favor
to do so".
On Wed, 01 May 2013 11:38:47 -0700 Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
JCH> Felipe Contreras [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Felipe Contreras [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
quoted
So let's go ahead and apply these directly on top of 'master', once
we hear from Emacs folks and they are happy with it. I'll queue it
on 'pu' so that I do not have to go back to the list archive when it
happens.
I already heard that everything seems to be working correctly, except
one feature, the biggest change, which I screwed up with a one-liner
commit. That's why I added a test. Anyway, I've fixed it in my github
branch and in this patch series, and I've told them to try the fix.
Let us know when they make progress on that front.
If Emacs decides to switch to Git and decides to use this version of
remote-bzr for their conversion, or at least a nontrivial group of
developers favor to do so, without seeing concrete technical points
that say remote-bzr is not yet ready (e.g. "the conversion is still
wrong and X, Y and Z needs to be fixed"), that would be a very
welcome solid vote of confidence in favor of us going ahead with
this.
Seems unlikely for political reasons (isn't it always for GNU?), since
RMS is heavily involved in the decision.
JCH> I am very aware of that discussion (and the original one when they
JCH> decided to use bzr). That is exactly why I said "at least ... favor
JCH> to do so".
FYI, in case you're not aware, there's a pretty strong feeling on
emacs-devel that the switch to Git will happen and RMS is not opposed.
I don't know if they'll use remote-bzr, though. It's more likely
they'll use one of the already-existing mirrors and sync it up, based on
the feedback so far. It's a good time to bring remote-bzr up on
emacs-devel if you want it to be considered.
HTH
Ted