On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Dave Brondsema <[email protected]> wrote: > On 8/6/12 5:57 PM, Peter Hartmann wrote: >... >> I just did some work on the issue mentioned above (ticket #3883). Patch >> needs testing, which I will probably do tomorrow. However, my ultimate >> goal is to help Allura's making pypi release as soon as possible, to >> ease overall deployment and thus make futher development easier. With >> this in mind, if Hg begs for the same treatment as Git and SVN, I would >> need to see to it next. I guess final decision on how to handle this >> requires futher input from other devs as well?
Seems that svn and git support should come built-in, since that fits within our licensing regime. And yeah: if Hg support can be a "plugin" that users can install into an Allura installation, then spinning that to another project (on SF, I presume) would make sense. > Great to hear :) > > It seems pretty clear to me that the ForgeHg package needs the same > treatment (making the core Allura package not depend on it), and even > more so: to make it a separate GPL-licensed project/repo. The only > other option I see is to write an Apache-licensed Mercurial library, but > that seems unrealistic IMO. You never know what motivates people :-P ... entirely possible that it'll scratch somebody's itch. I'm assuming that it would be possible, and if/when somebody does it in the future, then we could support Hg out of the box. Right? Cheers, -g
