There's a mercurial plugin for trac that we can play with. Is there
one for git? (I have not looked)
One bummer is that we will likely lose our existing links to commit
revisions (e.g., r1234 will no longer have meaning). Hmm.
On Mar 24, 2008, at 4:00 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
After playing with hg and git for few days, I tend to agree with the
emacs guys. It looks to me that any of them will do the job (as did
svn). I don't really care which one will be selected by the
community as long as we:
1. Don't spend months in deciding which one to choose.
2. Don't loose the nice integration o svn with our TRAC. Independent
on how good/fast the dVCS is, the way svn integrate with trac is a
real time saver. Tracking bugs, linking to revisions and to the wiki
are really important features to me, and I think that whatever our
decision will be we should not lose this.
george.
On Mar 24, 2008, at 2:12 PM, Roland Dreier wrote:
LWN.net has an interesting article about how Emacs chose a new
version
control system: <http://lwn.net/Articles/272011/>
They were back in the CVS stone ages, but their main contenders were
the same big three of distributed VCSs: git, hg and bzr. The article
pulls out a couple of very good quotes from their discussion. The
one
that caught my eye was from Richard Stallman:
We already know the most important thing about what we will find
from
a careful study of git, mercurial and Bzr. We will find that each
has
its advantages and disadvantages -- but none of them conclusive.
Each
will be preferred by some people, but any one of them would work
out
well enough.
- R.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@open-mpi.org
http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@open-mpi.org
http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
--
Jeff Squyres
Cisco Systems
