最近_Phil Muldoon_在gdb maillist挖了一个大坑 “GIT and CVS”，我当时看了以后，觉得这样的话题每过一段时间就会有人提起，每次都因为各种各样的问题，就不了了之了。RedHat他们有自己的一个gdb git branch，叫archer，估计他们每次把git上的patch，commit到cvs上都很郁闷，那个thread里边，Jan （GDB global maintainer）说了，他把git上的12 patch commit到cvs，花了他一个半小时，结果还有两个文件忘记添加了。
我个人觉得git很好，要是能换到git，我也高兴。我现在就之用cvs commit，其他的都不用。谁知道，Eli （GDB global maintainer）说git不好用，而且git不是gnu的项目，她在用bzr，还说“如果我们使用git，这很可能让我gdb里边不活跃了”。后来，楼就歪了，成了比较git和bzr了。里边讨论了很多git bzr很有意思的用法。
大名鼎鼎的Mark K. (GDB global maintainer)会回复了一次，老外果然说话很直接，也是他的风格 “I am a git hater.” 还列出了他的workflow，他那个workflow是最基本的workflow，就是 update/modify/commit。这样的workflow根本不适合，多个patch的改动，而且在网速慢的地方，就更不合适了。
<tromey> nobody wants to do the work, just argue about DVCs
<brobecke> It’s OK, though. I think there are disadvantages that are immediately visible as soon as you review a diff, but it’s not important enough that I want to pick a fight.
<brobecke> yeah, me too, sometimes.
<tromey> it is mostly stop-energy too
<brobecke> case in point, the latest discussion about git and bzr…
<tromey> sometimes I wonder why we put up with it
* brobecke sighs….
<tromey> I still haven’t read the latest git thread
* antgreen (~firstname.lastname@example.org) has joined #gdb
I didn't want the aggravation
<brobecke\> nothing much there, I wouldn't bother.
there were two threads, really:
(1): what are the problems that need fixing for us to switch to a different VCS
(2): what is the best DVCS?
(1) was a useful reminder, but (2) was a waste of time
shouldn't there be a "for us" in #2?
<brobecke\> SamB: Yes, actually there was (a bit)
<SamB\> of course, there's the fact that you are \*already using\* git...
someone even suggested that people who do the most commits should be the ones deciding :-)
in case it's useful: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0374/
<SamB\> brobecke: as someone who has made few or no commits, I am very much in favour of that plan!
这里没有什么好说的，就是他们开始讨论这个话题。第一句是亮点。介绍一下人物吧， brobecke， GDB global maintainer, Release Manager. tromey, GDB global maintainer。好，接着看他么还说什么了。
<tromey\> yeah; but gdb, being a GNU project, has a uniquely bad political atmosphere
<tromey\> it is something I contemplate quite frequently these days
<tromey\> other fields seem fairer
<SamB\> you guys do \*very\* well, considering
<tromey\> several GNU projects make progress according to the rule of "don't tell RMS"
<tromey\> this works, but really it ought to be beneath us
<brobecke\> If it was just about GDB, I think it would be doable to reach a consensus and just go ahead and do it. But we are intermingled with other projects, and it's costing us big time right now.
RMS ought to be saner
<brobecke\> SamB: the problem is that GDB is part of a larger "project" called src.
<brobecke\> when you checkout gdb, you actually checkout parts of src.
<SamB\> the stupidest name ever
<SamB\> but, yeah, I'm vaguely aware of the CVS repository arrangements
binutils guys ought to be on board, since one or two threads ago was on the binutils list
this comes up like every 8 months :)
\* brobecke is setting an alarm, then :)
anyway all the commit scripts need to be converted
and everything tested
and all src communities notified or whatever
Joseph posted a bullet list in one of the threads, which was, as usual for him, extremely comprehensive
definitive one might say
there are also the "nightly" scripts that create the tarballs, which could use a good rewrite anyway
<SamB\> I still don't understand how bzr even qualifies as a GNU project
it doesn't seem to have any of the disadvantages usually associated with that status
<brobecke\> why not? (just curious, I never looked at it before)
\* brobecke is reading the PEP document dmalcolm pasted
<SamB\> they'll take my commits without papers, for example
would a completely separate repo like archer and nightly sync to cvs be an option?
It mainly seems to be used to annoy those working on \*actual\* GNU projects by suggesting that they should use bzr
I thought bzr required copyright assignment to Canonical
for purely political reasons
tromey: maybe they do!
that for me is a critical flaw
I can't imagine what RMS was thinking
<brobecke\> so, to be part of the GNU project, all it takes is RMS accepting it?
<SamB\> anyway, as someone who actually \*likes\* bzr, I'm glad it is not a \*real\* GNU project
yes, RMS just has to bless it; but one of the good things about RMS is that he is unusually consistent and principled, so you can be assured it has to be free software at least
anyway the bzr decision is one of the things that has really soured me on GNU
这里就有一些有意思的事情了。我以前知道bzr是gnu dVCS，但是不知道参与bzr需要给Canonical 签 copyright assignment。这个是一个很奇怪的事情。community的工作，给一个公司签 assignment，的确很奇怪。
<brobecke\> did he have any alternative, though?
<brobecke\> how does git compare in terms of GNU\-dness, do you think?
<tromey\> this is the thing for me
<tromey\> why does GNU need to bless \*any\* DVC?
<tromey\> choosing bzr does not notably advance the cause of software freedom
<tromey\> there are already many free DVCs
<tromey\> free by every measure that matters to the FSF
<brobecke\> ah, I see.
\* dmalcolm mutters incoherent something about "free-as-in-requiring-copyright-assignment-to-a-for-profit-company"
<tromey\> what also matters to me is (1) the random authoritarianism of RMS \-- it isn't like this was some kind of process like the one Python went to -- and (2) bzr sucks IME; I think GNU should stand for \*both\* software freedom and technical excellence
yes, requiring assignment to a company is amazingly bad, especially considering the crap Shuttleworth says about this sort of thing
it has been extremely upsetting to me
wow, sorry that it's affected you so much. FWIW, I agree that it should strive for excellence as well.
<SamB\> dmalcolm: hey, it's trivial to fork if at some point they do something evil...
one other point about that PEP document: yes, Python does have a "benevolent dictator for life", but the point of the PEP system is to encourage gathering the expert opinion to bear on a subject, so that a decision can be transparently made, and the BDFL is effectively just rubber-stamping it. It turns the debate from a mailing list thread-of-doom into a deliverable/artefact
(sorry to weigh in; waiting on an upgrade here)
I would be ok with it if GNU worked this way
but RMS is not that open
I suppose even if GNU were like this, it would still be dominated by the Eli Zs and Tom Lords of the world and I would still end up looking for something else
Apache is perhaps a better model
or Fedora or Debian
brobecke, did I suggest that? I can't remember what I said ;)
<brobecke\> someone did, not sure who it was.
<pmuldoon\> I think I said my experience was not unique in that the only time I use CVS is when I check\-in
<pmuldoon\> I am sorry about the thread, if it caused problems. But I feel speaking up is the right thing to do, occasionally, even if it causes headaches ;)
<pmuldoon\> brobecke, and I still think there should some bias to the release maintainer, because that maintainer deals with it
<brobecke\> pmuldoon: thanks! :-). The releases take 2\-3h max twice a year, so the bias should go to heavy contributors.
最后，这样一个讨论也没有什么结论。但是，看上去，换一个vcs，还不是那么简单的事情。我还是不明白，GNU为啥选择bzr，我倒不是说bzr不好，就是觉得那样一中copy right assignment的形式，让别的公司很难接受的。我想这个决定应该RMS做的，不知道他老人家怎么想的。