Bill,
On 09.01.2016 20:47, Bill Deegan wrote:
Dirk,
For me, its "pain in having to remember how to do things in mercurial which I only
use for scons" each time I go to work on it I
have to refresh my mental cache.
Which I'm pretty sure wouldn't be measurable by such statistics. But (at least
for me) would increase the amount of fun it is to
work on the project.
and this (I'm referring to the "increased fun" here) wouldn't result in "more commits" and "more bugfixes"? Jonathon Reinhart stated
this point in his mail explicitly: more git -> more commits.
If this doesn't turn out to be true, what's left as justification for migrating to another DVCS and creating a lot of work (I'm
talking about the documentation of the new workflows/commands on the web/Wiki here)?
We've already stated that we'd simply convert the repo itself, so there is no benefit from the integration with Github's bugtracker
or the rest of the infrastructure (else we'd have to migrate those too).
If later on someone from Mercurial comes up to us and asks: "Why did you switch?" and our only answer is "Some core devs seemed to
like git better." I'd feel incredibly cheap. That's just not my personal mindset, neither for tackling problems, nor for conducting
a successful and pretty large open-source project (see also
https://code.facebook.com/posts/218678814984400/scaling-mercurial-at-facebook/ ).
What about bridges (e.g. https://github.com/abourget/git-hg-again ), or a "git mirror" of the main repo that could then be used via
"hg-git"? Again, I'm proposing this direction instead of having a "git" main server because it fits our current state best...
Regards,
Dirk
_______________________________________________
Scons-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
