Re: [PATCH] Improved `scm_from_locale_symbol ()' + `scm_take_locale_symbol ()'

[Ken Raeburn]

On Jan 25, 2006, at 4:45, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> The GNU Project contains two RCS: RCS and Arch.  Arch is distributed,
> RCS is not.  I don't think these are really "politics": it's about
> building a consistent system, the GNU system.

That's not the same as saying "we won't support svn/svk/darcs/ 
whatever, our servers will only run arch".  If indeed that is the  
policy (and I don't know if it is), the "is it political" question  
still stands.  (Though frankly I'm not all that interested in the  
reasons myself, if such a decision is or has been made.)  There's  
certainly a practicality argument to be made for supporting only one  
-- supporting arch and something else is more work -- but if there  
were volunteers to support darcs (or svk) for the convenience of  
developers who prefer it, it may not be that strong an argument...  
(or is maintenance of the cvs and arch services a paid position?)

> If Arch was technically so bad that it would impede development of the
> GNU system, it would obviously be a bad choice for the GNU Project
> (e.g., CVS was used because it could do more things than RCS); but  
> that
> is clearly not the case, quite the contrary.  :-)

I wouldn't know.  I've just been mirroring the Emacs CVS sources into  
my subversion repository for a couple of months now and haven't  
learned arch yet... :-)

But like I said, Arch being sufficient isn't, by itself, a reason not  
to support something else.

Ken