On 23 November 2014 at 16:27, Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote: >> On Nov 23, 2014, at 1:25 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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). > > Yea, but then you lose out on the entire ecosystem built around Github. > > Like you won’t be able to run travis tests on the docs to make sure that > any Pull Requests don’t silently start breaking the ability to build the > docs.
Travis isn't the only CI system on the internet, and for pure Sphinx documentation cases, ReadTheDocs runs just as well off BitBucket as it does off GitHub. I personally think changing version control systems would be an incredibly bad idea, and consider it completely out of scope for discussions of Mercurial repo hosting arrangements. There's a lot that could be done, with much lower impact, just by changing the way we manage the existing Mercurial repos. When we can't even work out the practical details of getting those implemented, suggestions of "git/GitHub will fix it!" sound like mere wishful thinking. Cheers, 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
