[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: https://melpa.org/packages/w3m-20180221.2059.tar: Not found
>>>>> Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@xxxxxxx> writes:
> On 2018-11-29 08:43, Colin Baxter wrote:
>> Would not moving from CVS to git add to confusion in that there
>> would be two emacs-w3m git distributions, only one of which would
>> be official. At least with CVS, a user does not have to worry
>> about getting the `wrong' URL, the labels git and CVS being
>> sufficient discriminators. Just a thought.
> A thought worth considering and responding to; here are my initial
> thoughts, for what they're worth:
> 1] There already does exist some measure of small confusion, in
> that may emacs users install emacs-w3m using MELPA, think that
> method gives them the latest official release. It's a reasonable
> assumption, and based upon the lack of complaints, it seems that
> the administration of 'emacs orphanage' seems to be conscientious
> in keeping the unofficial mirror accurate and up-to-date.
> 2] Based upon the account name chosen for 'emacs orphanage', my
> guess is that project doesn't see itself as an ideal source for
> emacs projects, and they would be glad to rid themselves of any
> project for which the developers would step forward and fill
> whatever gap led to 'emacs orphanage' assuming a role.
> 3] Having the emacs-w3m project migrate to git would benefit the
> project greatly by making it easier to manage the project, and
> easier for people to contribute to it.
> 3.1] Does anyone who has used git *like* cvs? Personally, I
> tried. I really did try very hard, and found myself writing
> complex scripts to perform tasks that are simple commands in
> git. Also, my internet connectivity isn't great, so it can be a
> drag to need to connect to a CVS half a world away for any version
> control action (or we could all move to Japan).
> 4] One option the project could consider is just to adopt the
> 'emacs-orphanage' git repository as its own. The advantage of this
> is that all the people worldwide who may possibly have cloned that
> repository, and developed code based upon it, would have
> compatible commit hashes on their master branch with the official
> 4.1] A barrier to this option would be if some deficiency were
> to be found in the 'emacs-orphanage' repository. I noticed that
> their copy omits historical branches, but that could easily be
> fixed. A more serious possible issue would be the theoretical
> that some historical meta-data is missing from the emacs-orphanage
> 5] It may be a simpler quality-assurance task for the project to
> perform its own migration from scratch, instead of relying on the
> 'emacs-orphanage' repository. On the other hand, 'emacs-orphanage'
> likely has more experience performing these type of migrations.
> -- hkp://keys.gnupg.net CA45 09B5 5351 7C11 A9D1 7286 0036 9E45
> 1595 8BC0
This is an extremely thoughtful response. Thank you. I use CVS and git
in my own work and don't have any particular preference, but, naively,
I had not appreciated the subtleties involved in choosing between
them. The absence or corruption of data from commits of a legacy git
could be an issue, as you point out. Perhaps retaining the status quo
isn't a bad idea!
Thanks again for your reply, best wishes,