GNU Emacs is on Bazaar now

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2009-12/msg00812.html

by indy • 17 years ago

30 26 17 years ago

lists.gnu.org

artagnon• 17 years ago

Thank God it moved out of CVS finally. It's still very difficult to contribute though.

blasdel• 17 years ago

When I saw the headline I was afraid they'd switched to one of the ancient directly-arch-derived DCVSes that had the same name (depressing that I considered that plausible), but it looks like the FSF anointed Canonical's most recent project a couple years ago.

zaphar3• 17 years ago

Bazaar is a fork of arch so you are correct in your initial assumption. It has however been actively developed by Canonical for several years so it's probably not as bad as it was then.

pohl5• 17 years ago

It seems that the current Bazaar was never a fork of arch. There was an old fork of arch that was once also called "Bazaar", but it was renamed to "Baz" and is no longer maintained. The current implementation is a new codebase. The only thing it appears to have in common with the old fork of arch is the name, which they must have carried forward for the sake of maximal confusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bazaar_(software)#History

nuclear_eclipse2• 17 years ago

From the first follow-up mail:

'Then I noticed that "C-x v v C-c C-c" is enough to commit in CVS, but perhaps not in Bazaar.'

Wow.

geocar• 17 years ago

Wow?

NikkiA• 17 years ago

I imagine that nuclear_eclipse is commenting on the obtuseness of C-x v v C-c C-c as a sequence of characters to tell emacs to commit a change.

Although it's not quite so daunting once you realise that C-x v is the version-control prefix, and 'v' is commit individual file. C-c C-c is just the command sequence to finish editing the commit message.

Once you leave apart the 'finish editing commit message' command, which is really a seperate task, C-x v v is arguably obtuse as a way of saying commit individual file, but on the other hand, C-x v as a prefix for all vcs related functions is easy enough to remember, and 'v' for commit individual file is easy enough to remember too.

In the microsoft world, 'C-x v v C-c C-c' would be replaced by a 10 page wizard most likely, and be far more irritating.

[Please note, I do not condone the use of empty commit messages, that's a heinous crime IMO]

Edit to add:

In my use of emacs with hg, I believe that that sequence will do exactly the same as it does under cvs, and it's reasonable to believe that the vcs-bazaar backend is no different either, so the complaint in the email is likely invalid.

talboito• 17 years ago

Exactly, committing with no message is poor practice.

That should be: "C-x v v <Type Commit Message> C-c C-c"

jrockway2• 17 years ago

After 1000 email threads saying nothing and 3 years of work, GNU Emacs is now using a slightly less-broken revision control system.

Everyone I know working on Emacs just uses the Git version and sends patches against that. But we couldn't use Git for Emacs, because RMS does not like Linus. Rational!

iambvk• 17 years ago

I think it has more to do with Bazaar being a GNU project, not because RMS does not like Linux.

nudded• 17 years ago

You probably mean Linus? (makes a lot of difference)

If not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds

pohl5• 17 years ago

Since Bazaar "transparently supports foreign branches for Subversion, Git and Mercurial repositories", I have to ask: does it matter that they don't use Git?

oomkiller2• 17 years ago

Too bad it's not git.

SingAlong• 17 years ago

When I saw this post I was wondering what bazaar was. then it took me a few seconds to google and figure out that GNU Bazaar is a version control system. Why don't they use git? Anything good with bazaar?

EDIT: Just saw the Bazaar site. Even MySQL and Ubuntu uses them. http://bazaar.canonical.com/

zaphar3• 17 years ago

Actually, bazaar has to be the most difficult and confusing VCS to use out of all the options available. Git and HG are much saner options to use.

algorias• 17 years ago

We use launchpad (i.e. bzr) for an open source project. It works and it does what you'd expect it to. Then again, it is a small project with simple needs.

pohl5• 17 years ago

Bazaar caught me by surprise, too. I've been enjoying the DVCS world lately, having finally decided that I had outgrown SVN.

Mercurial grabbed me more than Git did. My first experience with Mercurial was very natural. Everything that I tried worked the first time in the way I first tried to do it. Git left me fumbling about and googling for answers, but I was able to acclimate quickly. Ultimately, I decided that I would need to use both: Mercurial for my own tastes, and Git just because it's the dominant player.

Bazaar looks like a strong competitor, even for Mercurial, in terms of usability.

ubernostrum• 17 years ago

Knee-jerk much?

oomkiller2• 17 years ago

No, I've used bzr before, and much prefer git.

pieter• 17 years ago

I hope this means bazaar performance has improved a lot. With the first imports they created, running a 'bzr log' command could take more than a minute before showing output. Funny enough, the developers didn't seem to mind, because 'it's only a bit slower than cvs'

jrockway2• 17 years ago

It has improved, but not a lot. I find bzr to be unusable for working on Emacs (so I don't use it).

GNU Emacs is on Bazaar now

Related Stories