On Dec 28, 2007 10:43 AM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Dec 28, 2007, at 11:49 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > > For migrating from a centralised to a distributed VCS though, since > > the > > PSF repository is the upstream of all of the derived builds, it > > doesn't > > really gain any major benefits from the switch (the major activity > > which > > could have benefited - the parallel 2.6 and 3.0 development - should > > be > > effectively over by the time this comes up for discussion as a serious > > proposal). And downstream can get a pretty good work-alike by > > creating a > > vendor branch in their own preferred DVCS and making their > > modifications > > based on that (the only bit missing is integrated tracking of > > submitted > > changes which are accepted back into the central repository). > > Sorry Nick, but I have to disagree. Switching to a dvcs would be a > huge win for Python, both for core developers and others who wish to > hack on Python but don't have commit privileges. I've talked about > why I think this in previous messages.
Providing official mirrors of all (or at least several important) svn branches in popular DVCS tools would be sufficient. Better, if you consider that you can do several tools simultaneously, and there's no transition necessary for the existing developers. The word "distributed" in DVCS is exaggerated anyway. You'll always need a stable server to host public branches (as opposed to private ones, which can just use your laptop's LAN ip address.) The advantages related to merging are merely "nice" features, not critical ones to warrant moving away from svn. -- Adam Olsen, aka Rhamphoryncus
_______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
