=== marienz_ is now known as marirenz === marirenz is now known as marienz_ === marienz_ is now known as marienz === deryck_ is now known as deryck[lunch] === deryck[lunch] is now known as deryck [22:04] 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] evidently, "I think it's time to move on" isn't quite explicit enough [22:06] jelmer: Can you send an email to rms to tell him that bzr is dead and GNU should no longer use it? [22:10] 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] lifeless: Alright, can you do it? [22:12] does canonical even pay *anyone* to work on bzr anymore? [22:13] SamB: I don't know, not working there. Which is my point. [22:13] If you want a statement from someone with actual knowledge, you need to ask the sponsor. [22:13] lifeless: rms won't let us go until there's a clear message that bzr is completely unmaintained and unviable. [22:14] 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. === elmo__ is now known as elmo [22:15] 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] JordiGH: mgz or vila or jam may know. [22:16] lifeless: Do you have their email? [22:16] JordiGH: sure, its all over the place ;) [22:16] Which place? [22:17] bzr devel mailing list, package metadata for bzr packages, commit logs... [22:17] This is a sad conversation. [22:17] hmm, jam apparantly was the most recent to commit [22:18] it is a sad conversation, its also an odd one, because AFAIK Canonical are still maintaining bzr. [22:18] -> not dead. [22:18] Ugh, then how do we kill it de jure? It's already dead de facto. [22:18] Do we need to tell sabdfl to explicitly kill it? [22:18] or did he just approve it or something [22:19] SamB: jam approved a proposal from a Dylan [22:19] McCall [22:19] yes, with -n0 that becomes clearer [22:19] JordiGH: why do you want bzr killed ? [22:20] it isn't working very well for Emacs, but rms is extremely stubborn [22:20] 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] Xemacs V2 ? [22:21] *blink* why do users care about bzr being used for Emacs? [22:21] do you mean developers? [22:21] this is Emacs, how do you tell which is which? [22:22] 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] I have papers, but they wanted me to (essentially) rebase -i my code and I obviously cannot do that with bzr ... [22:24] 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] yeah, probably [22:26] elmo: It's already dead, just not officially. [22:26] JordiGH: no, like lifeless said, dead would be that it has no active maintainers [22:27] elmo: Then why won't the active maintainers not fix the bugs that Emacs has reported years ago? [22:27] I don't know that it has or hasn't and I'm pretty sure you don't know that [22:27] Nor even acknowledge them? [22:27] JordiGH: would rms be satisfied by a statement that it was 99% dead? [22:27] SamB: No, he's already gotten that statement [22:28] JordiGH: which bugs haven't been acknowledged? [22:28] JordiGH: which bub numbers do you mean? [22:28] *bug [22:28] The one that affects the ELPA repo. [22:29] 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] elmo: Can we declare it dead for Emacs, then? [22:30] JordiGH: thats up to Emacs surely... [22:30] lifeless: No, Emacs needs a statement from bzr. [22:30] * SamB wonders why rms even gets a vote [22:30] lifeless: rms will not relent otherwise. [22:31] You want the bzr community to say they don't want Emacs to use bzr? [22:31] lifeless: YES [22:31] PLEEASE [22:31] 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 ... === r0bby_ is now known as robbyoconnor [23:14] SamB, JordiGH: I don't think I'm the right person for that [23:19] oh, JordiGH disconnected; I guess expecting him to come here because I pasted that in #emacs doesn't make sense ... [23:20] jelmer: who would be better to ask? [23:21] 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] SamB: somebody currently involved in Bazaar [23:26] jelmer: I only have to go 3 commits back to find one from you ... [23:26] that seems current enough to *me* [23:27] SamB: that's a commit from last year I think? [23:28] yeah [23:28] SamB: Anyway, IIRC there is an official GNU maintainer for Bazaar. In the past that was mbp, today it's probably jam? [23:30] but I also agree with lifeless that it's a strange question to ask [23:32] then again, I also thought the process with which emacs chose bzr as its vcs at the time was odd [23:40] o/