On 06-04-2016 18:50:56 -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 11:04:59AM -0700, David Champion wrote: > > OK - that's a good track to have. The thing that made me think otherwise > > was the removal of hg-related components. Kevin has the final say now > > but we've never discussed moving to git, and I don't see what doing > > so would accomplish particularly other than allow/make people use one > > hosting system instead of another. > > I'm actually not as against this as you might think. It's pretty clear > git has won the popularity war, and there is some benefit in using a vcs > that most developers are familiar with. > > However, there are some strong arguments for not changing. Our > infrastructure and workflows are working quite nicely (thanks Brendan!), > and I'm not anxious to redo them all. Mercurial is easy to use, and I'm > skeptical it's *that* hard for anyone who's used git to pick up the > basics. (Going the other way isn't quite as easy, imo). Our history, > tickets, and changelog entries often reference mercurial changesets, > which would be a loss (not insurmountable, I know). Also, Mercurial is > still under active development. > > If the pluses and minuses started to weigh heavily against Mercurial, > I'd be open to the discussion, but I don't think we're there just yet. > For now I'd suggest keeping focused on maintaining and increasing the > project momentum.
Maybe this helps some people: https://github.com/felipec/git-remote-hg I haven't used it myself though. Thanks, Fabian -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
