On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 7:47 PM, anatoly techtonik <techto...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: >>> >>> > After the switch, hg.python.org/cpython will be the official repo, and >>> > code.python.org/hg will probably be closed. >>> >>> Why this transition is not described in PEP? >> >> Because it's not a transition. It's a mirror. It was put in place >> before the hg migration plan was accepted, IIRC. > > Where is this migration plan then if it is not in PEP? > >>> How code.python.org/hg is synchronized with Subversion? >> >> What does your question mean exactly? It's a mirror (well, a set of >> mirrors) and is synchronized roughly every 5 minutes. > > Method. Software used, which parameters are set for it, how to repeat > the process? > >>> Why it is not possible to leave code.python.org/hg as is in slave mode >>> and then realtime replication is ready just switch master/slave over? >> >> The two sets of repositories use different conversion tools and rules. >> They have nothing in common (different changeset IDs, different >> metadata, different branch/clone layout). > > That would be nice to hear about in more detail. As I understand there > is no place where it is described. I already see +1 from Fred Drake > and another +1 from Steve Holden down the thread. > > However, Antoine Pitrou, Dirkjan Ochtman and Jesse Noller object. They > afraid that contributors won't survive low-level details about > Mercurial migration. I'd say there a plenty of ways isolate them and > at the same time satisfy "Mercurial aficionados" either on the same > page or in different places.
No, I don't need you misrepresenting anything I've said Anatoly - I said there's no need to maintain SVN alongside mercurial after we convert, and doing so is silly. I maintain that once we convert, we very happily stay converted, and drop official "other" mirrors unless other volunteers step up to maintain them. I have no problem with additional documentation should people wish to volunteer to write it. We do not work for you Anatoly. > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull <step...@xemacs.org> > wrote: >> >> There is no reason at this point to suppose the transition can't be >> complete by the end of summer. However, as always, the devil is in >> the details, and one of them may be a showstopper. We'll just have to >> see about that. > > The transition can be complete in a few minutes. The question is how > good it will be. As there are no plan, no roadmap, no status - it is > hard to judge if it is feasible at all. No. There is no question except in your mind. We all have a rough idea of the status, modulo the PEPs being updated. It is also perfectly feasible. I would love it, and offer you a christmas card if you could drop the hyperbole and misrepresentation. > > Ok. Given that nobody is able/willing to say anything more - I've > gathered all your feedback concerning current status of Mercurial > migration on this Wave - > https://wave.google.com/wave/waveref/googlewave.com/w+4_fnAVHwA I > hope you will find the time to enhance it with more info so not > contributors proficient with Mercurial could help to speed up the > transition. While the summary is nice; your wave entry has nothing to do with the mercurial transition, if you want to help, please ask someone to take on an open task, or volunteer to write/accentuate the PEPs, or help with documentation for post-migration workflow. Your contributions can be effective and useful, rather than noisemaking and abrasive. The mercurial transition will occur, barring someone directly involved finding show-stopping reasons otherwise, with or without you. The decision was made some time ago, and despite your recent noisemaking, will continue on. 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
