Roland Mainz wrote:
....
Why does the "strong need" require to disallow any alternatives from
being used ? And what about tools like "webrev" - should they only
support Mercurial (which would be bad since these tools are expected to
be used for review in other consolidations, too - in that case you
develop on Subvesion and have to migrate the whole tree to Mercurial
just to run "webrev") ?
Because we're trying to maintain a consistent environment for people
who want to putback changes. Tools such as webrev are developed after
use of a particular SCM has been decided.
>Darren Moffat spake thusly
I don't believe that one should expect that the ON project/consolidation
team should/will support both Mercurial and Subversion, if they do one
of them has to be a read-only clone and for ON that means Subversion.
IMO this is not a good idea unless _lots_ of tools get Mercurial support
(which AFAIK won't happen since Mercurial is a very very rare SCM and
commercial products will likely demand lots of $$$$ for adding such a
feature).
Dude, prove it. Provide the evidence for your claim, or back off.
Besides, with ON's considerable impetus behind it, I don't see
why the tools that we need for ON (as well as other consolidations
let alone non-Sun products/projects) won't get enhanced for mercurial
support.
James C. McPherson
--
Solaris kernel software engineer
Sun Microsystems
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-code mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
