On 04/11/2011 09:43 AM, Elliot Murphy wrote: > Hi! > > On Sunday, April 10, 2011, Thomas Goirand <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 04/09/2011 05:21 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: >>> All, >>> >>> In an effort to speed up our code development processes, reduce the >>> friction amongst existing contributors and reduce barriers to entry >>> for new contributors familiar with the popular git DVCS, we (the >>> OpenStack@Rackspace team) have been studying a transition of our code >>> hosting from Launchpad to GitHub. We understand others would be >>> proposing the same at the design summit, but we figured it would be >>> good to get the discussion started earlier. >> >> It seems that my previous mail never reached the list, so I'll do again. >> >> Launchpad is *EXTREMELY* slow from here in Shanghai, and it should be >> even worth from the center of China. Even doing a simple thing like "bzr >> launchpad-login" can even fail because of connectivity, and I hardly can >> get few KB/s when I do a clone of a bzr repo. >> >> I mostly don't mind so much bzr, even though starting has been really >> annoying, and that I don't know much about advanced usage like I would >> with Git. But what I welcome the most is the hosting on a platform that >> has an acceptable speed from Asia, which really, isn't the case at all >> for Launchpad. Also, the fact that Git doesn't do network connections >> unless its really needed is very welcome. > > I am responsible for supporting the teams that develop and operate > Launchpad and other tools and systems at Canonical that we provide as > a high tech incubator of sorts for open source projects.
Having a discussion with Soren about merging a branch, we had the following discussion: On 04/19/2011 05:55 AM, Soren Hansen wrote: > 2011/4/18 Thomas Goirand <[email protected]>: >> Can't you just pull each individual patches that you feel ok with? Is >> it simply not technically possible with bzr? > > Short answer: no. Longer answer: Of course it's possible to extract > individual patches and apply them elsewhere, but it's tedious, manual > and throws away history. We bzr users care deeply about history :) I don't know bzr enough to be able to tell, but it seems like an area of improvement. History, for me, is quite important. With Git, it's really easy to get a bunch of patches, select the one we want, and reject others. To compete with Git, Bzr *must* be able to do that, and allowing rebase and merge of patches in order to keep a clean, readable, patch history. Forcing people into using so many small branches, just in order to maintain patches separately, doesn't seem convenient. And will take a lot of useless disk space which, for a big project, can be an issue. Having to make a copy of 100s of megs just for isolating a small patch seems quite unreasonable to me (imagine if it was maintained like that for the Linux kernel, openoffice or firefox, for example...). I just hope the above help. Thomas _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
