On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 09:58, C. Titus Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> -> Sticking with a dvcs implemented in Python makes the best sense, >> -> especially when you consider the plugin architecture. When we >> -> selected a new tracker, we didn't make implementation in Python a >> -> requirement, but instead a high hurdle. Meaning, if a tracker wasn't >> -> written in Python it had to be way better than those written in Python. >> >> I worry about the idea of hacking in any way, shape or form, on the >> version control system used to maintain the Python source code. I place >> VCSes at the compiler- or OS-level of the toolchain, because you have >> the option of fundamentally screwing up the entire project by playing >> with them. >> >> So from that perspective it's better to keep it *out* of Python to >> remove the temptation to hack :) >> > > I don't expect us to hack on the VCS itself. I am thinking more like > plug-ins commit hooks, etc.; the infrastructure around the VCS. > >> -> As for dvcs, I think git would have to show overwhelming advantage >> -> over bzr or hg to be considered. >> >> I personally have found git very, very powerful and good, albeit >> difficult to learn > > You can say that again. And that is a worry to me. Python gets patches > from people of all skill levels where ease of use for the VCS needs to > be considered. The Linux kernel probably doesn't get as many patches > from newbies as the barrier of entry is higher to contribute. > > I have yet to have met anyone who thinks git is great while having > used another DVCS as extensively (and I mean I have never found > someone who has used two DVCSs extensively). > >>. It is guaranteed to scale (unless Python gets to be >> significantly bigger and more active than Linux, at any rate) and it has >> a large, very technically capable, and supported user community already. >> > > I think any of the DVCSs will scale. But I will be taking some > performance numbers so scalability will be taken into consideration. > >> I think there are reasons why git should be at least strongly >> considered. > > Well, we will see, but as of right now my use of git has left a nasty > taste in my mouth that will take a lot of proverbial mouthwash to get > rid of and allow it to be considered in this PEP. >
I don't see how git can be considered given poor windows support - compilation on OS/X can be a bear too. And I echo the need/want to be able to customize the workflow and integration with the tracker/etc with something a bit more flexible. The bzr plugin system is nice. Also the ability to completely nuke the local-work-copies commit history ("cleaning it up") worries me, but I'm also paranoid. -jesse _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com