I prefer python, so I prefer mercurial
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Neal Becker wrote:
I prefer python, so I prefer mercurial
http://hg-git.github.com/
Dag Sverre
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 11:55 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
No, I am saying we need at least five people who can commit to the main
repo. That is the central repository model.
Excellent - yes - that's reasonable. Then if you also agree to this:
No development in
Hi,
How does that differ from what we do now? Review? I develop in my own
branches as is.
Right - so - then do you always ask for a review from someone before
merging into trunk? If so, then git is just a much more fluid,
reliable and faster tool to do what you are doing now.
True, but what
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
How does that differ from what we do now? Review? I develop in my own
branches as is.
Right - so - then do you always ask for a review from someone before
merging into trunk? If so, then git is just a much
Hi,
Having said that - it will of course happen that you ask for review
and no-one responds. That's not a very big problem, because git
merges are so easy that you can - as Anne said earlier - just keep on
developing without worrying that your changes will go out of date.
But if there's a
On 26 May 2010 23:27, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
Exactly. I had a private bet with myself that that would be the case. See,
it isn't so much different after all. The tools change, but the problems and
solutions remain much the same.
In this case, I believe the tool may
2010/5/27 Stéfan van der Walt ste...@sun.ac.za
On 26 May 2010 23:27, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
Exactly. I had a private bet with myself that that would be the case.
See,
it isn't so much different after all. The tools change, but the problems
and
solutions remain
On 27 May 2010 00:43, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, not quite. They can't commit to the main repository. I think the main
thing is to be responsive: fast review, quick commit. And quick to offer
commit rights to anyone who sends in more that a couple of decent patches.
On 27 May 2010 04:43, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe most importantly, distributed revision control places any
possible contributor on equal footing with those with commit access;
this is one important step in making contributors feel valued.
Well, not quite. They
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 2:28 AM, Anne Archibald
aarch...@physics.mcgill.ca wrote:
To get back to the original point of the thread: nobody has yet
objected to git, and all we have are some debates about the ultimate
workflow that don't make much difference to whether or how git should
be
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 2:28 AM, Anne Archibald
aarch...@physics.mcgill.ca wrote:
* Set up a git repository somewhere on scipy.org.
It's a minor point, but setting up and maintaining our own git
repository will require extra work without gaining anything useful.
Github has a number of very
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 11:28 PM, David da...@silveregg.co.jp wrote:
On 05/27/2010 02:16 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 11:06 PM, Anne Archibald
aarch...@physics.mcgill.ca
I just want to say that I used Git on Windows without any problem
using a minGW built Git, i.e. msysgit:
http://code.google.com/p/msysgit/downloads/list
The only problem I see is that with CR / CRLF / LF. When one installs
msysgit, one can choose what procedure to take - to commit to the repo
Hi,
Maybe most importantly, distributed revision control places any
possible contributor on equal footing with those with commit access;
this is one important step in making contributors feel valued.
I think this is a very important point, but subtle. I realize that's
a dangerous
2010/5/27 Friedrich Romstedt friedrichromst...@gmail.com:
I just want to say that I used Git on Windows without any problem
using a minGW built Git, i.e. msysgit:
Hm, I read the other thread too late to recognise this to be discussed
already - Sorry
And hey, even Windows has Tab completion of
On May 26, 2010, at 5:47 PM, Jarrod Millman wrote:
Hello,
I changed the subject line for this thread, since I didn't want to
hijack another thread. Anyway, I am not proposing that we actually
decide whether to move to git and github now, but I am just curious
how people would feel. We had a
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Travis Oliphant oliph...@enthought.com wrote:
I think we are ready for such a move. Someone should think about the
implications, though (with Trac integration, check-in mailings, etc.) and
make sure we get something we all like. Somebody probably has
On 26 May 2010 16:12, Travis Oliphant oliph...@enthought.com wrote:
I changed the subject line for this thread, since I didn't want to
hijack another thread. Anyway, I am not proposing that we actually
decide whether to move to git and github now, but I am just curious
how people would feel.
2010/5/26 Stéfan van der Walt ste...@sun.ac.za:
On 26 May 2010 16:12, Travis Oliphant oliph...@enthought.com wrote:
I changed the subject line for this thread, since I didn't want to
hijack another thread. Anyway, I am not proposing that we actually
decide whether to move to git and github
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Bruce Southey bsout...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/5/26 Stéfan van der Walt ste...@sun.ac.za:
On 26 May 2010 16:12, Travis Oliphant oliph...@enthought.com wrote:
I changed the subject line for this thread, since I didn't want to
hijack another thread. Anyway, I am
Hi Jarrod,
I'm in favour of the switch, though I don't use Windows. I find git
far more convenient to use than SVN; I've been using git-svn, and in
spite of the headaches it's caused me I still prefer it to raw SVN.
It seems to me that git's flexibility in how people collaborate means
we can do
I wouldn't call myself a developer, but I have been wanting to contribute
recently. I learned source control with svn, so I am much more comfortable
with it. My one attempt at using git for a personal project ended in
failure.
Then I discovered this guide, Git-SVN Crash Course:
Hi,
It seems to me that git's flexibility in how people collaborate means
we can do a certain amount of figuring out after the switch.
This is very well said and true to our recent experience with nipy and ipython:
http://github.com/ipython/ipython
http://github.com/nipy/nipy
My
experience
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
That's the model we've gone for in nipy and ipython too. We wrote it
up in a workflow doc project. Here are the example docs giving the
git workflow for ipython:
https://cirl.berkeley.edu/mb312/gitwash/
and in
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Jarrod Millman mill...@berkeley.eduwrote:
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
That's the model we've gone for in nipy and ipython too. We wrote it
up in a workflow doc project. Here are the example docs giving the
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
I wouldn't call myself a developer, but I have been wanting to contribute
recently. I learned source control with svn, so I am much more comfortable
with it. My one attempt at using git for a personal project ended in
On 27 May 2010 01:22, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Jarrod Millman mill...@berkeley.edu
wrote:
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
That's the model we've gone for in nipy and ipython too. We
Hi,
Linux has Linus, ipython has Fernando, nipy has... well, I'm sure it is
somebody. Numpy and Scipy no longer have a central figure and I like it that
way. There is no reason that DVCS has to inevitably lead to a central
authority.
I think I was trying to say that the way it looks as if it
On 27 May 2010 01:55, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Linux has Linus, ipython has Fernando, nipy has... well, I'm sure it is
somebody. Numpy and Scipy no longer have a central figure and I like it that
way. There is no reason that DVCS has to inevitably lead to a central
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 11:06 PM, Anne Archibald aarch...@physics.mcgill.ca
wrote:
On 27 May 2010 01:55, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Linux has Linus, ipython has Fernando, nipy has... well, I'm sure it is
somebody. Numpy and Scipy no longer have a central figure and
On 05/27/2010 02:16 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 11:06 PM, Anne Archibald
aarch...@physics.mcgill.ca mailto:aarch...@physics.mcgill.ca wrote:
On 27 May 2010 01:55, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
mailto:matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Hi,
No, at this point we don't have a release manager, we haven't since 1.2. We
have people who do the builds and put them up on sourceforge, but they
aren't release managers, they don't decide what is in the release or
organise the effort. We haven't had a central figure since Travis got a
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 11:28 PM, David da...@silveregg.co.jp wrote:
On 05/27/2010 02:16 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 11:06 PM, Anne Archibald
aarch...@physics.mcgill.ca mailto:aarch...@physics.mcgill.ca wrote:
On 27 May 2010 01:55, Matthew Brett
On 05/27/2010 02:34 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
An automatic gatekeeper is pretty much a
central repository, as I was suggesting.
I don't understand how centraly repository comes into this discussion -
nobody has been arguing against it. The question is whether we would
continue to push
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
No, at this point we don't have a release manager, we haven't since 1.2.
We
have people who do the builds and put them up on sourceforge, but they
aren't release managers, they don't decide what is in the
Hi,
No, I am saying we need at least five people who can commit to the main
repo. That is the central repository model.
Excellent - yes - that's reasonable. Then if you also agree to this:
No development in the main repo. Merges only.
then we're all in full agreement.
Review is fine,
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 11:55 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
No, I am saying we need at least five people who can commit to the main
repo. That is the central repository model.
Excellent - yes - that's reasonable. Then if you also agree to this:
No development in
38 matches
Mail list logo
