Re: MAINTAINERS file

[Thomas Lord]

Juanma Barranquero wrote:

Perhaps so, but on the other hand, many a project, some of them quite
big, have been able to select a dVCS without spending a year arguing
or failing into any trap.
  

Sure, and, mostly the same way:  the boss(es) just pick one,
somewhat arbitrarily but perhaps with some intuition about
what will work out.

 Bad choices of X happen but, they tend to get ironed out well so
 when it comes time to pick an X, there's no great reason to spend
 too much time deliberating over it.
    

There's a difference between "not [...] to spend too much time" and
not spending time at all.

  

Sure.  I'm not trying to argue with you -- just interpret for you and
maybe help you feel more comfortable with the decision.

There's some arbitrary amount of time to think about it.  Then some
best-guess decision.    GNU tends to work by, when such infathomable
problems arise, let RMS roll the dice, so to speak: he times and makes
the "impossible" choices.   In this case, ESR, bless his heart, seems to have
prompted quite a few list members to go back and refresh their
perspective on dvcs and spout some observations and opinions.   So,
RMS got a fair amount of input.   No one "argument in favor of system
X" has obviously prevailed or obviously could prevail but the decision
wasn't taken in a vacuum.

The harsh version of the interpretation might be "Well, GNU is
RMS' project so it's his call.  Like or lump it."   I'm just trying to point
out that that's not a crazy policy because, in calling for a different
approach to the decision, you're suggesting a (pretty radical) change
in policy.

 (Maybe, though, it is about time for a new task list and "vision
 sketch" of a complete GNU.   For example, an effort could be made
 to assemble a candidate FSF/GNU distribution with the expectation
 that the effort will fail, but will yield a list of what work remains to
 be done.)
    

That would be interesting.

  

Thanks.  I think so, too.

-t

             Juanma