On Jan 5, 2008 3:58 AM, Fernando Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 4, 2008 11:45 AM, Ondrej Certik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > David is 100% right, I fully support this. I would be just repeating > > what he says. > > > > Charles actually said another point in favor of Mercurial - it works > > on Windows (at least people say so), while git not that much (at least > > people say so). I never use Windows myself, so I don't know. > > FWIW, we (ipython) have also gone around a few times on this, and > would like (at some point to switch to a DVCS as well). I think the > benefits are many, so I won't rehash it here, others have done it > well. > > One point that hasn't been mentioned is how useful a DVCS is when > doing dev sprints: people can work and sync off their own private > repos without touching SVN, with lots and lots of cross-developer > information flow that doesn't affect the main server or even other > devs. In fact, when doing sprints I always end up making a local hg > repo just for that purpose, and then committing back to svn upstream > at the end of the sprint. > > As much as git looks really good, the Windows issue is, I think, a > deal killer: last I checked support was poor, and I think our core dev > tools should be truly, 100% cross-platform without any discrimination > (kinda-sorta-works on platform X isn't enough).
I agree. This is not enough, but for me, the following are non negotiable: - the tool must work on unix, mac os X and windows - the tool must be open source. I guess everyone agrees on those points anyway. > > My vote so far is for hg, for performance reasons but also partly > because sage and sympy already use it, two projects I'm likely to > interact a lot with and that are squarely in line with the > ipython/numpy/scipy/matplotlib world. Since they went first and made > the choice, I'm happy to let that be a factor in my decision. I'd > rather use a tool that others in the same community are also using, > especially when the choice is a sound one on technical merit alone. > I understand the "sumpy uses it" reason, it is definitely a factor. But I would rather have a more thorough study on the merits of each system. For example, being a user of bzr for a year and a half now, I think I have a pretty good idea on how it works, and its advantages. We could then decide on a set of attributes to compare, and people who knows about one tool could then tell about it. Performances-wise, hg and bzr really are comparable nowadays for common, local operations. I don't think it is a relevant parameter for the hg vs bzr choice anymor, specially for scipy/numpy which are small projects (I have bzr imports of scipy and scikits, so I can give some numbers if you need them). Third party tools, special abilities (svn import, storage efficiency, special commands, etc...) are more important I think David _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
