Re: Git mirrors

[Richard Riley]

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

>> From: Óscar Fuentes <address@hidden>
>> Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 15:31:03 +0200
>> Cc: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden>, address@hidden
>> 
>> The past is "choosing bzr over other Free alternatives was politicaly
>> motivated regardless of technical merit; the interests of GNU prevailed,
>> users were dismissed."
>> 
>> The present is "providing a convenient git mirror is considered not good
>> for GNU; once again, GNU is considered more important than users."
>> 
>> I always thought that Free Software is about the user, always the
>> user. But once you begin privileging some packages simply because they
>> abide to GNU, and viewing others as "not beneficial" because they don't,
>> irrespectively of its merit, then GNU starts looking as a menacing
>> entity, something dangerous that pretends to roll over your beloved
>> creations just because that's good for GNU's self-interest.
>
> I disagree with this interpretation, but I'm sure Richard will explain
> things better than I ever could.
>
>> If some Emacs hackers feel more at home with
>> git/mercurial/whatever-other-Free-tool, why not simply provide it?
>
> Because it takes the effort from other useful development tasks.  

And you dont feel this one off task of setting up the mirror is
worthwhile when compared to the possibly thousands of people familiar
with git that are not familiar with the vastly slower and more
cumbersome bzr having to learn bzr and come up across the endless
freezes and slow transfer rates that have prompted people to request a
working git mirror in the first place? Strange. I would think anyone
involved with emacs would want to make the trunk available to more
people.