Re: patch vs. overwrite in bzr

[Bastien]

Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:

>     That amounts to using the Emacs repository is the canonical repository
>     for Gnus, ERC, CEDET, MH-E, Org, ...
>     But they don't want to do that, often for good reasons (legal,
>     practical, ...).

As I see it, the main reason for Org to use a separate repository
is to gather an active community around a central place.

Regular Org testers don't want to rebuild Emacs each time they have 
to test a new feature in Org.

The second main reason is completely subjective: I prefer git over 
bzr and I want to maintain Org using git.

> If there is a legal reason for this, doesn't that imply a problem of
> some kind already exists?  We need to find out what the claimed legal
> reasons are, and think about whether they indicate legal problems for
> Emacs development.

There is no legal reason for not using the Emacs repository as the
canonical repository for Org.  Just a practical one: doing so would
force us to maintain the canonical Org repository in Emacs *and* 
another repository for things that are useful to Org and that cannot
be part of Emacs.

> As for practical reasons, doesn't the flexibility of a DVCS
> make them go away?

Above legal (unknown) reasons, and above practical reasons, there
is this community-based argument I stated above, which is IMHO the
most important.

-- 
 Bastien