moving to bazaar.canonical.com

[Karl Fogel]

Ben Finney <ben+bazaar at benfinney.id.au> writes:
>> There are upsides to corporate support too, though, for Bazaar as well
>> as Canonical.
>
> I don't think anyone here doubted that was the case. It's frustrating to
> see this point brought up in connection with this decision as though it
> were addressing a concern raised during the discussion. I don't see that
> it is.

FWIW, I didn't take Martin's mail as implying that this point had been
raised in the earlier discussions.  He's just making the point now.
(And I think it's true: it won't hurt Bazaar, either development-wise or
adoption-wise, to be seen as closely associated with Canonical, and for
certain kinds of adopters it may actually help.)

>> This isn't a precursor to closing the licence, the development process or
>> anything else ulterior.
>
> Hopefully the concerns of many of us here — that this is a precursor to
> having an even more difficult time convincing independent-minded hackers
> to adopt Bazaar — are ill-founded.

I also hope so.  For myself, deciding what software to hack on or to use
has never been affected by the closeness of a corporate sponsor.  The
things I look at are the features, the license, and the health of its
development processes and community: Are bugs being reported?  Are
substantive commits taking place?  How many developers?  Etc.  The
domain name is simply not a factor.

-K