[22:04] <SamB> jelmer: so, #emacs was wondering if you could break it to rms that bzr is dead and it is time to move on ...
[22:04] <SamB> evidently, "I think it's time to move on" isn't quite explicit enough
[22:06] <JordiGH> jelmer: Can you send an email to rms to tell him that bzr is dead and GNU should no longer use it?
[22:10] <lifeless> JordiGH: why should jelmer do that? He is no more authoritative than e.g. I am, or poolie... we don't work for Canonical anymore
[22:10] <JordiGH> lifeless: Alright, can you do it?
[22:12] <SamB> does canonical even pay *anyone* to work on bzr anymore?
[22:13] <lifeless> SamB: I don't know, not working there. Which is my point.
[22:13] <lifeless> If you want a statement from someone with actual knowledge, you need to ask the sponsor.
[22:13] <JordiGH> lifeless: rms won't let us go until there's a clear message that bzr is completely unmaintained and unviable.
[22:14] <JordiGH> Not a blog post, not a wishy-washy "I think..." or "perhaps if we did this, bzr could revive", but a resounding NO on bzr.
[22:15] <lifeless> JordiGH: So unmaintained means 'set of active maintainers is empty', and while I can say that I am not focused on maintaining bzr anymore (though I still have commit rights AFAIK), I can't say 'the set of active maintainers is empty' because - I /don't know/.
[22:15] <lifeless> JordiGH: mgz or vila or jam may know.
[22:16] <JordiGH> lifeless: Do you have their email?
[22:16] <lifeless> JordiGH: sure, its all over the place ;)
[22:16] <JordiGH> Which place?
[22:17] <lifeless> bzr devel mailing list, package metadata for bzr packages, commit logs...
[22:17] <Peng> This is a sad conversation.
[22:17] <SamB> hmm, jam apparantly was the most recent to commit
[22:18] <lifeless> it is a sad conversation, its also an odd one, because AFAIK Canonical are still maintaining bzr.
[22:18] <lifeless> -> not dead.
[22:18] <JordiGH> Ugh, then how do we kill it de jure? It's already dead de facto.
[22:18] <JordiGH> Do we need to tell sabdfl to explicitly kill it?
[22:18] <SamB> or did he just approve it or something
[22:19] <lifeless> SamB: jam approved a proposal from a Dylan
[22:19] <lifeless>  McCall
[22:19] <SamB> yes, with -n0 that becomes clearer
[22:19] <lifeless> JordiGH: why do you want bzr killed ?
[22:20] <SamB> it isn't working very well for Emacs, but rms is extremely stubborn
[22:20] <JordiGH> lifeless: Because rms won't Emacs stop using bzr unless bzr is officially pronounced dead, and there's a huge majority of users that are mighty pissed off about bzr being used for Emacs. It's a horrible and divisive thorn in the Emacs community. It needs to be excised.
[22:20] <lifeless> Xemacs V2 ?
[22:21] <elmo> *blink* why do users care about bzr being used for Emacs?
[22:21] <elmo> do you mean developers?
[22:21] <SamB> this is Emacs, how do you tell which is which?
[22:22] <elmo> SamB: pretty easily, IMO?  I'm an emacs user, for example.  I've never known or cared what VCS emacs is developed in
[22:23] <SamB> I have papers, but they wanted me to (essentially) rebase -i my code and I obviously cannot do that with bzr ...
[22:24] <elmo> I'm not suggesting emacs should continue to use bzr; I'm simply suggesting that trying to get the entire bzr project officially killed to stop emacs using it is something of an overreaction/overreach
[22:25] <SamB> yeah, probably
[22:26] <JordiGH> elmo: It's already dead, just not officially.
[22:26] <elmo> JordiGH: no, like lifeless said, dead would be that it has no active maintainers
[22:27] <JordiGH> elmo: Then why won't the active maintainers not fix the bugs that Emacs has reported years ago?
[22:27] <elmo> I don't know that it has or hasn't and I'm pretty sure you don't know that
[22:27] <JordiGH> Nor even acknowledge them?
[22:27] <SamB> JordiGH: would rms be satisfied by a statement that it was 99% dead?
[22:27] <JordiGH> SamB: No, he's already gotten that statement
[22:28] <lifeless> JordiGH: which bugs haven't been acknowledged?
[22:28] <SamB> JordiGH: which bub numbers do you mean?
[22:28] <SamB> *bug
[22:28] <JordiGH> The one that affects the ELPA repo.
[22:29] <elmo> JordiGH: I've reported bugs in many many free software projects that never get acknowledgement or fixed (I'm pretty sure some of my Debian bugs have been opened > 10 years at this point); it doesn't mean these projects are dead
[22:29] <JordiGH> elmo: Can we declare it dead for Emacs, then?
[22:30] <lifeless> JordiGH: thats up to Emacs surely...
[22:30] <JordiGH> lifeless: No, Emacs needs a statement from bzr.
[22:30]  * SamB wonders why rms even gets a vote
[22:30] <JordiGH> lifeless: rms will not relent otherwise.
[22:31] <lifeless> You want the bzr community to say they don't want Emacs to use bzr?
[22:31] <JordiGH> lifeless: YES
[22:31] <JordiGH> PLEEASE
[22:31] <JordiGH> PLEEEEEEASE.
[22:34]  * SamB doesn't see how a project with as much wrong with it as bzr has can be considered "alive" when the time between commits to trunk is measured in months ...
[23:14] <jelmer> SamB, JordiGH: I don't think I'm the right person for that
[23:19] <SamB> oh, JordiGH disconnected; I guess expecting him to come here because I pasted that in #emacs doesn't make sense ...
[23:20] <SamB> jelmer: who would be better to ask?
[23:21] <lifeless> You could ask on the list, but I think its a crazy thing to ask. What community will say 'go away' to a user that they wany to support
[23:25] <jelmer> SamB: somebody currently involved in Bazaar
[23:26] <SamB> jelmer: I only have to go 3 commits back to find one from you ...
[23:26] <SamB> that seems current enough to *me*
[23:27] <jelmer> SamB: that's a commit from last year I think?
[23:28] <SamB> yeah
[23:28] <jelmer> SamB: Anyway, IIRC there is an official GNU maintainer for Bazaar. In the past that was mbp, today it's probably jam?
[23:30] <jelmer> but I also agree with lifeless that it's a strange question to ask
[23:32] <jelmer> then again, I also thought the process with which emacs chose bzr as its vcs at the time was odd
[23:40] <poolie> o/