On 23 November 2014 at 16:03, Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote: >> On Nov 23, 2014, at 12:59 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Note that if folks prefer Git, BitBucket supports both. I would object >> strongly to unilaterally forcing existing contributors to switch from >> Mercurial to git. > > Going to all the trouble to move to an external repository and choosing the > least popular option out of the two main ones seems like a bad idea in > general.
Moving repos from hg.python.org to bitbucket.org is just a matter of switching some URLs around, and changing some backend systems to cope with the new location. The end result should be to make life better for existing contributors *and* new contributors using the web UI, and be largely transparent to folks using command line tools. By contrast, proposals to switch from Mercurial to Git impose a *massive* burden on contributors that don't already know git. That significant increase in the time investment required will provide *NO* practical benefit for existing contributors (this is coming from someone that has used git and Mercurial in parallel for years - trust me, they're functionally isomorphic), and only make life marginally easier for potential new contributors (you can log in to BitBucket with your GitHub ID, and the functional isomorphism means that many folks already use tools like git-remote-hg to use the git command line to interact with the hg.python.org Mercurial repos). Regards, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
