Emacs Needs To Move To GitHub, Says ESR
hypnosec writes "Eric S. Raymond, co-founder of the Open Source Initiative, has recommended that Emacs should move to another version control system like GitHub, as bzr is dying. In an email, Raymond highlighted the key reasons why he believes that Emacs should move. Raymond said that bzr is moribund; its dev list has flatlined; and most of Canonical's in-house projects have already abandoned bzr and moved to GitHub. ESR believes that bzr's codebase is sufficiently mature to be used as a production tool, but he does mention that continuing to use the revision control system will have 'social and signaling effects damaging to Emacs's prospects.'"
Update: 01/06 20:50 GMT by U L : ESR did not suggest Github the proprietary hosting platform for git, but rather git the version control system. Which is actually already available on Savannah (the bazaar repository is automatically synced with the git repository).
ESR's original posting does not mention Github at all.
No need to move to a proprietary hosting service like Github.
I wrote about this previously: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/savannah
Join the Free Software Foundation
He wants to move emacs to git and not to Github. Journalists...
The original source (ESR himself) never mentioned GitHub. Just git. Can people stop conflating the two please?
it pre-dates git by a year, it was the NiH version of cvs and svn. Bzr was doing useful stuff before anyone realised Git would ever be used for anything other than the Linux kernel source tree. That isn't to say that NiH isn't sometimes a good thing, and that Canonical do daft things from time to time, but bzr wasn't a NiH reaction to Git.
A heretic uses XEmacs. An apostate doesn't take the time to install Emacs where it is not available, instead using vi. A blasphemer suggests that emacs and vi are essentially interchangeable, denying emacs' uniqueness and primacy. All three prefer emacs; only pagans and barbarians prefer something else.
The biggest issues I have with it are:
Nothing is a deal breaker. I think Git on Windows works as well as most other source control systems when its up and going and comes with its own advantages that compel its use for software development. I wouldn't use it for document management though - something like Subversion would be better for that.
I thought there was a fairly complex history here, since the current bzr was (I thought) bzr-ng originally, an alternative to some original Bazaar tool. And I thought that *that* came from GNU Arch, which (speaking loosely) I gathered wasn't well understood or enjoyable to use. I don't know how much of the current behaviour dates back that far, though, so there may not be too much in common now!
260 characters is a Windows limitation ("C://" + 256). To get longer paths you need to switch to the Unicode-based API, and change the format of path strings. See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa365247(VS.85).aspx