5 ms·

GNU Emacs is on Bazaar now

30 points by indy 17y ago

artagnon 17y ago
Thank God it moved out of CVS finally. It's still very difficult to contribute though.
blasdel 17y ago
When I saw the headline I was afraid they'd switched to one of the ancient directly-arch-derived DCVSes that had the same name (depressing that I considered that plausible), but it looks like the FSF anointed Canonical's most recent project a couple years ago.
- zaphar 17y ago
  Bazaar is a fork of arch so you are correct in your initial assumption. It has however been actively developed by Canonical for several years so it's probably not as bad as it was then.
  - pohl 17y ago
    It seems that the current Bazaar was never a fork of arch. There was an old fork of arch that was once also called "Bazaar", but it was renamed to "Baz" and is no longer maintained. The current implementation is a new codebase. The only thing it appears to have in common with the old fork of arch is the name, which they must have carried forward for the sake of maximal confusion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bazaar_(software)#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bazaar_(software)#History
nuclear_eclipse 17y ago
From the first follow-up mail: 'Then I noticed that "C-x v v C-c C-c" is enough to commit in CVS, but perhaps not in Bazaar.' Wow.
- geocar 17y ago
  Wow?
  - NikkiA 17y ago
    I imagine that nuclear_eclipse is commenting on the obtuseness of C-x v v C-c C-c as a sequence of characters to tell emacs to commit a change. Although it's not quite so daunting once you realise that C-x v is the version-control prefix, and 'v' is commit individual file. C-c C-c is just the command sequence to finish editing the commit message. Once you leave apart the 'finish editing commit message' command, which is really a seperate task, C-x v v is arguably obtuse as a way of saying commit individual file, but on the other hand, C-x v as a prefix for all vcs related functions is easy enough to remember, and 'v' for commit individual file is easy enough to remember too. In the microsoft world, 'C-x v v C-c C-c' would be replaced by a 10 page wizard most likely, and be far more irritating. [Please note, I do not condone the use of empty commit messages, that's a heinous crime IMO] Edit to add: In my use of emacs with hg, I believe that that sequence will do exactly the same as it does under cvs, and it's reasonable to believe that the vcs-bazaar backend is no different either, so the complaint in the email is likely invalid.
    - nuclear_eclipse 17y ago
      Thank you. That's exactly the explanation I was looking for, and you're right; `C-x v` is much more reasonable as a hotkey for invoking vcs tasks, similar to git integration in Vim, <Leader>-g-c for commit, etc. I was just blown away imagining some superbly arcane key chord involving pressing and releasing control twice in a string of five letters... :P
      - silentbicycle 17y ago
        Specifically, "C-x v v" is C-x (extended commands), v (version control prefix), v ("next action": do the next logical step for the current buffer, usually committing). C-c twice is used in several modes to mean "save and close out". It's also what you hit to send an e-mail you're composing, for example. Holding control and pressing c twice is pretty easy, just like whacking v twice for "next action". (C-c usually prefixes commands specific to the buffer's mode, such as "send the definition under the cursor to Python".) If you ever forget any of this, you can type "C-x v" and then C-h (Help) and it will list all of the keyboard shortcuts prefixed by C-x v, i.e., all shortcuts related to version control. (I find VC shortcuts go straight to muscle memory, but just in case.) What NikkiA says above about those five keystrokes being a 10 page wizard in other systems is spot-on.
jrockway 17y ago
After 1000 email threads saying nothing and 3 years of work, GNU Emacs is now using a slightly less-broken revision control system. Everyone I know working on Emacs just uses the Git version and sends patches against that. But we couldn't use Git for Emacs, because RMS does not like Linus. Rational!
- iambvk 17y ago
  I think it has more to do with Bazaar being a GNU project, not because RMS does not like Linux.
  - nudded 17y ago
    You probably mean Linus? (makes a lot of difference) If not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds
- pohl 17y ago
  Since Bazaar "transparently supports foreign branches for Subversion, Git and Mercurial repositories", I have to ask: does it matter that they don't use Git?
oomkiller 17y ago
Too bad it's not git.
- SingAlong 17y ago
  When I saw this post I was wondering what bazaar was. then it took me a few seconds to google and figure out that GNU Bazaar is a version control system. Why don't they use git? Anything good with bazaar? EDIT: Just saw the Bazaar site. Even MySQL and Ubuntu uses them. http://bazaar.canonical.com/ http://bazaar.canonical.com/
  - zaphar 17y ago
    Actually, bazaar has to be the most difficult and confusing VCS to use out of all the options available. Git and HG are much saner options to use.
    - pohl 17y ago
      I just heard about bazaar. Could you elaborate? It feels very mercurial-esque at first blush, and it would be nice to know what to look out for.
      - zaphar 17y ago
        Strange I could have sworn I replied to this yesterday but obviously I didn't. Bazaar is a fork of arch. The last time i truly looked at it it was only recently forked from arch. So you experience may vary. At that time Bazaar was dog slow. Depending on who I ask it is either no longer slow or it's still slow just not as slow. Since Git and HG both suite my needs perfectly I've never bothered to check myself. Bazaar uses multiple repository and wire formats none of which are completely compatible with each other. For an application whose focus is distributed collaboration this seems very much wrong. It also from what I've heard is fragile when it comes to interrupted writes. I've had stories of folks losing the whole repository because of this. This is hearsay though so you can take it or leave it. The sense I get is that both Git and Hg have a well exposed and understandable theory of operation while Bazaar does not seem to have this and instead just gives you a set of best practices. Again this is subjective and you may very well find that its quite useable and understandable.
pieter 17y ago
I hope this means bazaar performance has improved a lot. With the first imports they created, running a 'bzr log' command could take more than a minute before showing output. Funny enough, the developers didn't seem to mind, because 'it's only a bit slower than cvs'
- jrockway 17y ago
  It has improved, but not a lot. I find bzr to be unusable for working on Emacs (so I don't use it).

30 points by indy 17y ago

Thank God it moved out of CVS finally. It's still very difficult to contribute though.

When I saw the headline I was afraid they'd switched to one of the ancient directly-arch-derived DCVSes that had the same name (depressing that I considered that plausible), but it looks like the FSF anointed Canonical's most recent project a couple years ago.

zaphar 17y ago
Bazaar is a fork of arch so you are correct in your initial assumption. It has however been actively developed by Canonical for several years so it's probably not as bad as it was then.
- pohl 17y ago
  It seems that the current Bazaar was never a fork of arch. There was an old fork of arch that was once also called "Bazaar", but it was renamed to "Baz" and is no longer maintained. The current implementation is a new codebase. The only thing it appears to have in common with the old fork of arch is the name, which they must have carried forward for the sake of maximal confusion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bazaar_(software)#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bazaar_(software)#History

nuclear_eclipse 17y ago

From the first follow-up mail: 'Then I noticed that "C-x v v C-c C-c" is enough to commit in CVS, but perhaps not in Bazaar.' Wow.

geocar 17y ago
Wow?
- NikkiA 17y ago
  I imagine that nuclear_eclipse is commenting on the obtuseness of C-x v v C-c C-c as a sequence of characters to tell emacs to commit a change. Although it's not quite so daunting once you realise that C-x v is the version-control prefix, and 'v' is commit individual file. C-c C-c is just the command sequence to finish editing the commit message. Once you leave apart the 'finish editing commit message' command, which is really a seperate task, C-x v v is arguably obtuse as a way of saying commit individual file, but on the other hand, C-x v as a prefix for all vcs related functions is easy enough to remember, and 'v' for commit individual file is easy enough to remember too. In the microsoft world, 'C-x v v C-c C-c' would be replaced by a 10 page wizard most likely, and be far more irritating. [Please note, I do not condone the use of empty commit messages, that's a heinous crime IMO] Edit to add: In my use of emacs with hg, I believe that that sequence will do exactly the same as it does under cvs, and it's reasonable to believe that the vcs-bazaar backend is no different either, so the complaint in the email is likely invalid.
  - nuclear_eclipse 17y ago
    Thank you. That's exactly the explanation I was looking for, and you're right; `C-x v` is much more reasonable as a hotkey for invoking vcs tasks, similar to git integration in Vim, <Leader>-g-c for commit, etc. I was just blown away imagining some superbly arcane key chord involving pressing and releasing control twice in a string of five letters... :P
    - silentbicycle 17y ago
      Specifically, "C-x v v" is C-x (extended commands), v (version control prefix), v ("next action": do the next logical step for the current buffer, usually committing). C-c twice is used in several modes to mean "save and close out". It's also what you hit to send an e-mail you're composing, for example. Holding control and pressing c twice is pretty easy, just like whacking v twice for "next action". (C-c usually prefixes commands specific to the buffer's mode, such as "send the definition under the cursor to Python".) If you ever forget any of this, you can type "C-x v" and then C-h (Help) and it will list all of the keyboard shortcuts prefixed by C-x v, i.e., all shortcuts related to version control. (I find VC shortcuts go straight to muscle memory, but just in case.) What NikkiA says above about those five keystrokes being a 10 page wizard in other systems is spot-on.

jrockway 17y ago

After 1000 email threads saying nothing and 3 years of work, GNU Emacs is now using a slightly less-broken revision control system. Everyone I know working on Emacs just uses the Git version and sends patches against that. But we couldn't use Git for Emacs, because RMS does not like Linus. Rational!

iambvk 17y ago
I think it has more to do with Bazaar being a GNU project, not because RMS does not like Linux.
- nudded 17y ago
  You probably mean Linus? (makes a lot of difference) If not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds
pohl 17y ago
Since Bazaar "transparently supports foreign branches for Subversion, Git and Mercurial repositories", I have to ask: does it matter that they don't use Git?

oomkiller 17y ago

Too bad it's not git.

SingAlong 17y ago
When I saw this post I was wondering what bazaar was. then it took me a few seconds to google and figure out that GNU Bazaar is a version control system. Why don't they use git? Anything good with bazaar? EDIT: Just saw the Bazaar site. Even MySQL and Ubuntu uses them. http://bazaar.canonical.com/ http://bazaar.canonical.com/
- zaphar 17y ago
  Actually, bazaar has to be the most difficult and confusing VCS to use out of all the options available. Git and HG are much saner options to use.
  - pohl 17y ago
    I just heard about bazaar. Could you elaborate? It feels very mercurial-esque at first blush, and it would be nice to know what to look out for.
    - zaphar 17y ago
      Strange I could have sworn I replied to this yesterday but obviously I didn't. Bazaar is a fork of arch. The last time i truly looked at it it was only recently forked from arch. So you experience may vary. At that time Bazaar was dog slow. Depending on who I ask it is either no longer slow or it's still slow just not as slow. Since Git and HG both suite my needs perfectly I've never bothered to check myself. Bazaar uses multiple repository and wire formats none of which are completely compatible with each other. For an application whose focus is distributed collaboration this seems very much wrong. It also from what I've heard is fragile when it comes to interrupted writes. I've had stories of folks losing the whole repository because of this. This is hearsay though so you can take it or leave it. The sense I get is that both Git and Hg have a well exposed and understandable theory of operation while Bazaar does not seem to have this and instead just gives you a set of best practices. Again this is subjective and you may very well find that its quite useable and understandable.

pieter 17y ago

I hope this means bazaar performance has improved a lot. With the first imports they created, running a 'bzr log' command could take more than a minute before showing output. Funny enough, the developers didn't seem to mind, because 'it's only a bit slower than cvs'

jrockway 17y ago
It has improved, but not a lot. I find bzr to be unusable for working on Emacs (so I don't use it).