On Mon, 2013-09-09 at 06:57 -0700, Walter Bright wrote: […]
> If someone can point me to how to make it so, I'll take care of it.

I will check, but I think ownership change is a push operation rather than a pull operation. Andrei has write powers in both organizations and so is the person who can action the ownership transfer. At that point the other members of the current organization will lose write permission and will have to resort to pull requests themselves.

It is really that someone with write permission has to ensure pull requests get actioned in reasonable time with reasonable evidence. Sadly this generally involves running the updates themselves as E-Lisp has very poor testing facilities so TDD is not really an option :-(

> > As long as 1 of the 21 members of the organization will take on the responsibility for it then fine, go with it. Then we can delete the Emacs-D-Mode-Maintainers group.
> 
> Even better, I can create a TeamEmacs group that will have pull power for the Emacs repository, and they can be the people who have it for the previous group.

We already have an organization Emacs-D-Mode-Maintainers is that what you need?

-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

On Mon, 2013-09-09 at 09:34 -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 9/9/13 2:13 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
[…]
> > We'll need to update the MELPA entry so the pulls come from the new repository.

I'll have to check this. I didn't set it up, it all seemed to happen by magic, i.e. someone with MELPA control powers just started pulling and packaging our repository. Which was good.

> > We'll also have to amend Launchpad stuff as well.
> 
> OK, so what's the next step? To whom should we talk? Could you carry the message?

I can handle all the Launchpad and Bazaar end of things as we leave that infrastructure exactly as it is now. It is only there really as terminating Launchpad projects seems to need personal authority from Mark Shuttleworth.

-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

On Mon, 2013-09-09 at 19:37 +0200, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: […]
> Actually this was just a shout-out to a few years back when we were both fairly active members of the bzr mailing list :-)  I do still follow it, but I think sadly you are now one of the few remaining active list members ... ?

:-)

and

:-(

Bazaar (and Mercurial) were the only usable DVCSs early on, but already by 2006, O'Reilly had decided that Git was the winner and everything else was history – they effectively created a self-fulfilling prophecy. Git has over the years been bullied into being almost usable, Bazaar has lost it's major supporter and Mercurial drifts on the edge of being mainstream relevant. The USP of Git for me is remote tracking branches. I forgive a lot of unusability in Git for that.

The interesting player in the game that is still around and really good, but very few have heard of is Fossil.

-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

On 09/09/13 19:41, Russel Winder wrote:
> I can handle all the Launchpad and Bazaar end of things as we leave that
> infrastructure exactly as it is now. It is only there really as
> terminating Launchpad projects seems to need personal authority from
> Mark Shuttleworth.

Really?!!  Seems a bit extreme.

I suppose though there is a benefit in making it impossible for a project maintainer to unilaterally declare an end to the project and take down its pages (cf. the whole openMosix mess).

On 09/09/13 19:47, Russel Winder wrote:
> Bazaar (and Mercurial) were the only usable DVCSs early on, but already
> by 2006, O'Reilly had decided that Git was the winner and everything
> else was history – they effectively created a self-fulfilling prophecy.
> Git has over the years been bullied into being almost usable, Bazaar has
> lost it's major supporter and Mercurial drifts on the edge of being
> mainstream relevant. The USP of Git for me is remote tracking branches.
> I forgive a lot of unusability in Git for that.

I have personally drifted quite strongly towards git over the last 4 years.  I agree the UI of bzr is still friendlier, but I have come to appreciate many of the features of git and these days the extra complexity is not that much greater.  That said, partly it's simply a consequence of the projects I'm involved with these days.

Whatever my personal software choices, I'm very sad that bzr is no longer really in the game.  It was an excellent tool, the first VCS I really used, and a great way to learn the principles of DVCS.

> The interesting player in the game that is still around and really good,
> but very few have heard of is Fossil.

I have heard of it, but never tried it.  I really must give it a look, though -- its choice to include bug tracking, wiki pages, etc. within the versioned history was something I found both intriguing and very attractive.

How does it fare on the speed/scale front?

On Mon, 2013-09-09 at 11:11 +0200, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: […]
> I'd add Ubuntu also to that list, simply because of the number of users -- it's helpful to ensure that every 6 months, such a widely-used distro has the latest D tools.

Unless Ubuntu changes it's strategy being in Debian Unstable means you get slurped into the next Ubuntu.

-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

Am 09.09.2013 19:47, schrieb Russel Winder:
> On Mon, 2013-09-09 at 19:37 +0200, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> […]
>> Actually this was just a shout-out to a few years back when we were both fairly
>> active members of the bzr mailing list :-)  I do still follow it, but I think
>> sadly you are now one of the few remaining active list members ... ?
>
> :-)
>
> and
>
> :-(
>
> Bazaar (and Mercurial) were the only usable DVCSs early on, but already
> by 2006, O'Reilly had decided that Git was the winner and everything
> else was history – they effectively created a self-fulfilling prophecy.
> Git has over the years been bullied into being almost usable, Bazaar has
> lost it's major supporter and Mercurial drifts on the edge of being
> mainstream relevant. The USP of Git for me is remote tracking branches.
> I forgive a lot of unusability in Git for that.
>
> The interesting player in the game that is still around and really good,
> but very few have heard of is Fossil.
>

On Windows world, Mercurial still has the edge over Git, given the poor Windows support.

This will eventually change given the recent endorsement Microsoft has given to Git on their tooling, but it will still take some time to change.

--
Paulo

On 09/09/13 19:59, Russel Winder wrote:
> Unless Ubuntu changes it's strategy being in Debian Unstable means you
> get slurped into the next Ubuntu.

Yes, I know, but GDC is still fast-moving enough that the latest update might not make it via the Debian Unstable slurp.  Unless there's a close enough relationship that any updates to GCC in Debian Unstable also get pulled through into Ubuntu whenever they're made?

On Mon, 2013-09-09 at 18:31 +0200, Paulo Pinto wrote:
[…]
> I wonder where you got this idea from.

It may just be FUD, but…

> .NET is pretty strong at Microsoft conferences, even this year BUILD had lots of new goodies announced.
> 
> They can decide to target the WinRT runtime instead of the CLR, go fully native instead of generating MSIL bytecodes, or keep using CLR.

There appears to be a lowering of the CLR position in the Microsoft
public stances, and a rise of the native position (mostly C++).
Clearly .NET remains a strong Microsoft technology in the short term,
but it has not really achieved the penetration recently that perhaps it
should. Many organizations I deal with are planning to replace CLR-based
technologies.

A lot of the organizations that were Java at the centre, and C# on the leaf nodes, are switching to Scala at the centre and Python at the leaf nodes. I present as personal evidence the amount of training work I am doing, but others are reporting similar. Admittedly this is areas where number crunching is an important component. So instead of CLR, there is a focus on JVM and native for crunching and Python for control and visualization. D could be a strong part of this and I keep making miniature technical marketing pitches whenever possible, but the C++ codes are already in place, and their strategy is already in place.

> There are lots of options still open and as someone that is active in both JVM and .NET worlds, I don't see .NET slowing down in the enterprise space. Pretty much the contrary actually, looking at the requests for proposals my employer receives.

Clearly we are in very different sectors. Everywhere I am going JVM and native is displacing CLR. I can quite happily believe both our observations are correct!


PS It has not passed my notice that revolutionary technical change often follows from the appointment of new CTOs, not necessarily from any burning need to change the technology. However it is sometimes easier to put in place needed replacement of components by revolutionary rather than evolutionary methods.
-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

On Monday, 9 September 2013 at 18:03:20 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote
>
> On Windows world, Mercurial still has the edge over Git, given the poor Windows support.
>
> This will eventually change given the recent endorsement Microsoft has given to Git on their tooling, but it will still take some time to change.
>
> --
> Paulo

I find Git on Windows to be very nice actually. I just download GitExtensions, which installs Git and KDiff and such, as well as an awesome extension for Visual Studio. That extension is the best version control IDE integration I've ever used. Git Extensions will also set git up for command prompt, and optionally include tools like ssh-keygen so you can use the command line as you would on Linux. Perhaps there was a time that Windows support for Git was terrible, but I find it excellent now.