-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Just a quick update on the conversion to Bazaar.
There are a couple of things you can do right now to play with bzr.
The Launchpad admins have fixed the urls for the two branches hosted
there. To check out the Mailman 2.1 bzr mirror of upstream
On 7-May-07, at 11:37 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
Here is my current thinking, and I'd like to know what you all think
about this. Andrew created the mondernize_21_webui branch and
applied the xhtml and css patches to it. We could conceivably keep
these changes very conservative, i.e. just u/i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On May 8, 2007, at 3:42 PM, Terri Oda wrote:
On 7-May-07, at 11:37 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
Here is my current thinking, and I'd like to know what you all think
about this. Andrew created the mondernize_21_webui branch and
applied the xhtml and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On May 6, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Mads Kiilerich wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote, On 05/04/2007 03:28 PM:
Mr Mercurial might soon come up with an alternative:
http://marc.info/?l=mercurialm=117753118122082
That could be very interesting. I know that was
Barry Warsaw writes:
On May 5, 2007, at 12:49 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
I'm now a lot less happy with Mercurial than I was a day ago.
Bummer.
Well, Mike (XEmacs's Mercurial champion) accuses Tailor of abusing the
Mercurial APIs. He has a point, although my worries retain some
Barry Warsaw wrote, On 05/04/2007 03:28 PM:
Mr Mercurial might soon come up with an alternative:
http://marc.info/?l=mercurialm=117753118122082
That could be very interesting. I know that was just a couple of
weeks ago, but have you heard of an eta for such hosting?
I asked them and just
Hi all,
Sorry that I can't say anything nice on this thread but my feelings on
this distributed somthing :-P is just the same as Mark's. Currently, I
am extremely busy on everyday duties and difficult to find time to code.
I will be able to spare more time for mailman when the cemester ends
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 4-May-07, at 7:05 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
I'm just now trying to catch up on this thread. Mostly, I have nothing
to contribute because I have no experience with any dvcs.
That said, for me personally, I don't mind learning something new.
I,
[Mike -- I'll get back to you on this, but wanted make sure I pinged
you before I forget ]
Barry Warsaw writes:
On May 4, 2007, at 2:21 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
I'll take svn2hg via Tailor, since that's what I'm using anyway for
XEmacs.
Cool thanks. I'd love to see what
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On May 3, 2007, at 11:50 AM, Jon Scott Stevens wrote:
Since I haven't seen anyone else mention this... there is also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SVK
I say stick with Subversion/SVK:
#1. *everyone* knows how to use it and almost all OSS
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On May 3, 2007, at 12:57 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Barry Warsaw writes:
Your point about interoperability is an important one, and definitely
a factor in the decision. I think the risk is mitigated by tools
like Tailor,
Tailor is great,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On May 3, 2007, at 2:06 PM, Mads Kiilerich wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote, On 05/03/2007 05:16 PM:
Alioth is for Debian only, right? Would they host Mercurial branches
for other FLOSS software like Mailman? If we go with Mercurial,
we'll need
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On May 3, 2007, at 9:45 PM, A.M. Kuchling wrote:
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 08:50:16AM -0700, Jon Scott Stevens wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SVK
What about SVK's speed, though?
There was discussion of providing a DVCS mirror of the Python
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On May 3, 2007, at 10:42 PM, Ethan Fremen wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
Of course, I think it /will/ make our lives harder in some ways. As
we've seen, folks like cPanel have their own forks that they modify,
and then their users come looking to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On the Mercurial front, last night I tried to use yasvn2hg to convert
the Mailman repository to hg. The conversion failed however:
Error: could not classify changeset 102
I haven't had time to try some of the other conversion scripts.
I'd bet
Barry Warsaw writes:
So my take away from this is that while a conversion would be /
possible/ it's not completely seamless or automatic. If we choose
wrong, we'll suffer some pain, but we'll recover. ;) Would you say
that's accurate? I could live with that.
I really doubt we'd
Barry Warsaw writes:
Is anybody interested in trying to complete the Mercurial
conversion? I can make a bz2-tarball of the svn repository available
if you want to give it a shot. It's about 87MB.
I'll take svn2hg via Tailor, since that's what I'm using anyway for
XEmacs.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On May 4, 2007, at 2:21 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Barry Warsaw writes:
Is anybody interested in trying to complete the Mercurial
conversion? I can make a bz2-tarball of the svn repository available
if you want to give it a shot. It's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On May 4, 2007, at 3:57 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
That's right. In my integration workspace maintained under git, I
basically branch for *every* commit back to the XEmacs CVS, and delete
the branch when I see the commit notice. In my
Barry Warsaw wrote:
I propose that no matter which way we go (Mercurial, Bazaar or
something else), we convert only the trunk. Let's leave the stable
2.1 branch on SF under Subversion, but do all new development in the
dvcs. It will be a bit more painful to commit fixes across both
Barry Warsaw writes:
I propose that no matter which way we go (Mercurial, Bazaar or
something else), we convert only the trunk. Let's leave the stable
2.1 branch on SF under Subversion, but do all new development in the
dvcs.
Why not do both? That is, if Tailor does its thing
Edward Elhauge writes:
Would you compare Bazaar to GnuArch (tla):
http://www.gnuarch.org/arch/
Is your Bazaar a different branch of Arch?
Yes. The bazaar Barry is talking about is commonly called bzr (the
name of the command) or bazaar-ng.
It's similar in that it is a distributed
On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 22:01 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
[ superb summary, snipped for brevity ]
Thank you Stephen for your excellent summary, it was very informative
and even handed. I tend to share your view that git and mercurial are
the current best of breed.
At the moment the open
On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 11:16 -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
Alioth is for Debian only, right? Would they host Mercurial branches
for other FLOSS software like Mailman? If we go with Mercurial,
we'll need someone reliable to host the official branches. I
certainly don't want to do that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On May 3, 2007, at 11:37 AM, Fil wrote:
write privileges are
a big sticking point for community participation in code development,
to which I agree. However, he also concluded that dvcs's are /bad/
for open source because they encourage private
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On May 3, 2007, at 11:42 AM, John Dennis wrote:
On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 11:16 -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
Alioth is for Debian only, right? Would they host Mercurial branches
for other FLOSS software like Mailman? If we go with Mercurial,
we'll
Barry Warsaw writes:
Your point about interoperability is an important one, and definitely
a factor in the decision. I think the risk is mitigated by tools
like Tailor,
Tailor is great, but mitigated is as far as you can go. The basic
stuff like branches and committer id is properly
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 08:50:16AM -0700, Jon Scott Stevens wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SVK
What about SVK's speed, though?
There was discussion of providing a DVCS mirror of the Python SVN, so
I tried at making a copy of the repository via SVK, and SVK looked
like it was going to be
Barry Warsaw wrote:
Of course, I think it /will/ make our lives harder in some ways. As
we've seen, folks like cPanel have their own forks that they modify,
and then their users come looking to us for support, which we can't
give them. Having more public branches out there will
Hi Barry,
when I tried to do some work on Mailman, a while ago (a few years, in
fact), I was not put off by the (then) CVS system used, but more by
the fact that it seemed very difficult to get write priviledges (I
didn't insist enough either, though I got the GNU assignment papers);
and by the
On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 18:09 -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
I think this is a good time to ask whether we should move from
Subversion to Bazaar http://www.bazaar-vcs.org for our source code
revision control system.
Bazaar is a distributed version control system. This is really the
crucial
Hi Barry,
Would you compare Bazaar to GnuArch (tla):
http://www.gnuarch.org/arch/
Is your Bazaar a different branch of Arch?
I ask because I've used tla a lot and liked it. On the Arch page
they have the main Arch repository as:
http://bazaar.canonical.com/
* Barry Warsaw [EMAIL
32 matches
Mail list logo
