On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 15:34, "Martin v. Löwis" <mar...@v.loewis.de> wrote: >>> Second, I think it would be good to explicitly mention the option of >>> deferring this PEP. Based on previous discussion, it sounds like there >>> are a fair number of people who think that there is a DVCS in Python's >>> future, but not now (where "now" means over the next couple of years). >> >> Sure, I can add a note somewhere that says if a clear winner doesn't >> come about the PEP can be revisited to a later date. >> > > I think the request is slightly different: consider that a potential > outcome should be "svn for the next five years, then reconsider" - not > because none of the DVCS is a clear winner, but because there is too > much resistance to DVCSes in general, at the moment.
I already put a note in that no DVCS might be chosen once the PEP is finished. Whether it is because no DVCS is a clear improvement over svn or people just don't like a DVCS seems like a minor thing to worry about to spell out in the PEP. -Brett _______________________________________________ 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
