Your vehemence in support of Mercurial is quite evident. I don't know the arguments for or against distributed version control. If it seemed important I would reason the whole thing out and then I might come down on one side or the other. However, it isn't important. What we're doing here is going from a project with one or two commiters to a project with five to eight commiters if that. It's hardly the kind of expansion that needs this kind of thought put into project management.
But even if a change of source control would be good and even if it would be good enough to upset the established mechanisms and even if would be good enough to make potentially interested developers stray from what everyone is familiar enough with to use we should still wait to see if there is a problem. If development can continue smoothly without excessive time commitments from anyone then we should let it continue. It's not about hating DVCSs. It's not about the features we might want to use. It's not even about fear of a "risky" change. It's about caring about the source more than the source control. Because without caring about the source the source control is really just control... Telling, no? Richard. On Aug 15, 6:44 am, Florian Bösch <[email protected]> wrote: > On Aug 15, 1:44 am, Francesco Pischedda > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > well, private branch are the common and required features of dvcs-es and I > > agree > > Using mercurial you can either: > 1) create a branch (named or unnamed) and continue developing it, > merging changes in from the tip as you go, when you commit this head > will be visible. > 2) create a clone of the repository where you work on the changes, > pull and merge from the upstream repository and when you're done > commit, no new branch will be created for others. > 3) create a Queue which gets re-applied after you've pulled from > upstream repositories, therefore creating a local "view" of what you > do, you can add/drop the whole queue at any time (particularly handy > if somebody wants to try out your changes with his own non published > clone) > > I really don't see what's the handwaving over "ohno don't change the > VCS". It's a nobrainer. mercurial is as easy to use as SVN (it allows > you to ignore most of the fancy features), it is a hell of a lot > faster doing a full checkout, it's a hell of a lot faster displaying > diffs, it's a *lot* more flexible, the migration to it has been done > and closed... > > Now you can cry all you want how this is a solution in search of a > problem, or how it's all to risky or you simply hate DVCSes, at the > end of the day, Mercurial *is* better then SVN in every respect. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pyglet-users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pyglet-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
