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> ok <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 (~email@example.com) has joined #gdb <tromey> I didn't want the aggravation <brobecke> nothing much there, I wouldn't bother. <brobecke> there were two threads, really: <brobecke> (1): what are the problems that need fixing for us to switch to a different VCS <brobecke> (2): what is the best DVCS? <brobecke> (1) was a useful reminder, but (2) was a waste of time <SamB> 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... <brobecke> someone even suggested that people who do the most commits should be the ones deciding :-) <dmalcolm> 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 <SamB> indeed <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. <SamB> 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 <tromey> binutils guys ought to be on board, since one or two threads ago was on the binutils list <tromey> this comes up like every 8 months :) * brobecke is setting an alarm, then :) <tromey> anyway all the commit scripts need to be converted <tromey> and everything tested <tromey> and all src communities notified or whatever <tromey> Joseph posted a bullet list in one of the threads, which was, as usual for him, extremely comprehensive <tromey> definitive one might say <brobecke> 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 <tromey> me neither <SamB> 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 <andre> would a completely separate repo like archer and nightly sync to cvs be an option? <SamB> It mainly seems to be used to annoy those working on *actual* GNU projects by suggesting that they should use bzr <tromey> I thought bzr required copyright assignment to Canonical <SamB> for purely political reasons <SamB> tromey: maybe they do! <tromey> that for me is a critical flaw <tromey> 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 <tromey> 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 <tromey> 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 <tromey> yes, requiring assignment to a company is amazingly bad, especially considering the crap Shuttleworth says about this sort of thing <tromey> it has been extremely upsetting to me <tromey> :-( <brobecke> 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... <dmalcolm> 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 <dmalcolm> (sorry to weigh in; waiting on an upgrade here) <tromey> I would be ok with it if GNU worked this way <tromey> but RMS is not that open <tromey> 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 <tromey> Apache is perhaps a better model <tromey> or Fedora or Debian <pmuldoon> 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。