On 29 November 2014 at 03:34, Demian Brecht demianbre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 6:52 AM, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
I suspect if we make sure we add Bitbucket and GitHub login support to the
issue tracker then that would help go a fair distance to helping with the
On 11/28/2014 09:34 AM, Demian Brecht wrote:
I primarily use git for development. Having little or no effort to
context switch to work on CPython in any capacity (PEPs, code, etc)
would be hugely beneficial for me. Having a well defined workflow in
the docs (perhaps alongside Lifecycle of a
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 6:52 AM, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
I suspect if we make sure we add Bitbucket and GitHub login support to the
issue tracker then that would help go a fair distance to helping with the
GitHub pull of reach (and if we make it so people can simply paste in
On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 16:17:06 +1000
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
The subsequent discussion has made me realise that dissatisfaction
with the current state of the infrastructure amongst core developers
is higher than I previously realised, so I've re-evaluated my own
priorities, and
On Tue Nov 25 2014 at 1:17:49 AM Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 November 2014 at 13:18, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
There’s also the social aspects of it as well which is a big concern too
IMO. If you want to attract new contributors, not just keep the ones you
On 24 Nov 2014 10:41, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
On Nov 23, 2014, at 6:57 PM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info
wrote:
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 08:55:50AM -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
But I strongly believe that if we want to do the right thing for the
long term, we
On Nov 23, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
I took the git knowledge I acquired by necessity at Red Hat and
figured out how to apply it to hg. All the same features are there in
hg, they're just switched off by default (mainly because the core
Mercurial devs are adamant that any
On 24 November 2014 at 10:20, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
Another aspect that can be somewhat annoying is the terminology
conflict between branches in the git sense and bookmarks vs named
branches in the Mercurial sense.
This is probably the thing that hurts me most in git/hg
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com writes:
Are you volunteering to write a competing PEP for a migration to git
and GitHub?
Anyone who does decide to propose either Git or GitHub for hosting
Python resources: Please don't conflate the two.
Git is a community-supported free-software DVCS system
On 24 November 2014 at 22:01, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
On Nov 24, 2014, at 6:44 AM, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
No, I'm not offering to write such a PEP either. I'm requesting that we
recognise that a promotion of GitHub needs to account for its downsides
too, and
On Nov 24, 2014, at 7:09 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 November 2014 at 22:01, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
On Nov 24, 2014, at 6:44 AM, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
No, I'm not offering to write such a PEP either. I'm requesting that we
On Nov 24, 2014, at 4:12 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 Nov 2014 10:41, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io
mailto:don...@stufft.io wrote:
On Nov 23, 2014, at 6:57 PM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info
mailto:st...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014
On Nov 24, 2014, at 2:25 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 November 2014 at 02:55, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
On Sun Nov 23 2014 at 6:18:46 AM Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
Those features are readily accessible without changing the underlying
version
On Nov 24, 2014 3:12 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 Nov 2014 10:41, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
On Nov 23, 2014, at 6:57 PM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info
wrote:
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 08:55:50AM -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
But I strongly
On Mon Nov 24 2014 at 2:25:30 AM Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 November 2014 at 02:55, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
On Sun Nov 23 2014 at 6:18:46 AM Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com
wrote:
Those features are readily accessible without changing the underlying
version
On Nov 24, 2014, at 11:28 AM, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
On Mon Nov 24 2014 at 2:25:30 AM Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com
mailto:ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
That
outcome would be the antithesis of the PSF's overall mission,
This might be a little controversial, but the
On Nov 24, 2014, at 2:25 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
Are you volunteering to write a competing PEP for a migration to git and
GitHub?
If nobody steps up to do this (and another PEP isn’t accepted before then) I can
likely write something up over the upcoming holiday.
---
Is there snapshotting?
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
On Nov 24, 2014, at 2:25 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
Are you volunteering to write a competing PEP for a migration to git and
GitHub?
If nobody steps up to do this (and another
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
On Nov 24, 2014, at 11:28 AM, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
On Mon Nov 24 2014 at 2:25:30 AM Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
That
outcome would be the antithesis of the PSF's overall mission,
This might
On 25 Nov 2014 02:28, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
On Mon Nov 24 2014 at 2:25:30 AM Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 November 2014 at 02:55, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
On Sun Nov 23 2014 at 6:18:46 AM Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com
wrote:
Those features are
On Nov 24, 2014, at 2:55 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 Nov 2014 02:28, Brett Cannon br...@python.org
mailto:br...@python.org wrote:
On Mon Nov 24 2014 at 2:25:30 AM Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com
mailto:ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 November 2014 at
On 25 Nov 2014 06:25, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
On Nov 24, 2014, at 2:55 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
It may not have been Guido's intention, but his proposal to undercut the
entire Python based version control tooling ecosystem by deeming it
entirely unfit for our
On 24/11/2014 02:59, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Nov 23, 2014, at 08:55 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
- Moving from Hg to Git is a fair amount of one-time work
For anyone seriously interested in this, even experimentally, I would highly
suggest looking at Eric Raymond's reposurgeon code. You can
On Nov 24, 2014, at 3:48 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 Nov 2014 06:25, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io
mailto:don...@stufft.io wrote:
On Nov 24, 2014, at 2:55 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com
mailto:ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
It may not have been Guido's
On 11/24/2014 08:36 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
On Nov 24, 2014, at 11:28 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
This might be a little controversial, but the PSF's mission should not
influence a decision of python-dev.
Yet what we do can reinforce, or undermine, the PSF.
The only reason we didn't go with
On Nov 24, 2014, at 8:59 PM, Ethan Furman et...@stoneleaf.us wrote:
On 11/24/2014 08:36 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
On Nov 24, 2014, at 11:28 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
This might be a little controversial, but the PSF's mission should not
influence a decision of python-dev.
Yet what we do
On 11/24/2014 06:27 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
On Nov 24, 2014, at 8:59 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
It is sounding to me like GitHub is not, itself, an open solution, even
though
they may support open source.
I’d agree if the tooling was comparable, but at the end of the day the closed
source
On Nov 24, 2014, at 9:37 PM, Ethan Furman et...@stoneleaf.us wrote:
On 11/24/2014 06:27 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
On Nov 24, 2014, at 8:59 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
It is sounding to me like GitHub is not, itself, an open solution, even
though
they may support open source.
I’d agree if
On 25 November 2014 at 13:18, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
There’s also the social aspects of it as well which is a big concern too IMO.
If you want to attract new contributors, not just keep the ones you already
have sometimes that means going to where the new contributors are
On Nov 23, 2014, at 2:35 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 November 2014 at 17:14, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
On Nov 23, 2014, at 2:01 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
Travis isn't the only CI system on the internet, and for pure Sphinx
documentation
On 23 Nov 2014 18:11, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
On Nov 23, 2014, at 2:35 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
In the absence of a proposal to change version control systems
(again), the lack of Mercurial hosting on GitHub makes it rather a
moot point. Given that we can
Nick Coghlan writes:
By contrast, proposals to switch from Mercurial to Git impose a
*massive* burden on contributors that don't already know git.
Let's not get carried away here. The *massive* burden is the moaning
from git-haters (is there a 12-step program for them?) Agreed,
learning
On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 22:58:02 +0900
Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org wrote:
Nick Coghlan writes:
By contrast, proposals to switch from Mercurial to Git impose a
*massive* burden on contributors that don't already know git.
Let's not get carried away here. The *massive* burden is
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014, at 01:25, Nick Coghlan wrote:
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
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
More generally, I'm very, very disappointed to see folks so willing to
abandon fellow community members for the sake of following the crowd.
Perhaps we should all just abandon Python and learn Ruby or JavaScript
because
On Sun Nov 23 2014 at 6:18:46 AM Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 Nov 2014 18:11, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
On Nov 23, 2014, at 2:35 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
In the absence of a proposal to change version control systems
(again), the lack
On Nov 23, 2014, at 11:55 AM, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
This high level of activity also takes place in spite of the fact that direct
corporate investment in paid contributions to the CPython runtime currently
don't really reflect the key role that CPython holds in the
On 11/22/2014 11:13 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
On Nov 23, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
I took the git knowledge I acquired by necessity at Red Hat and
figured out how to apply it to hg. All the same features are there in
hg, they're just switched off by default (mainly because the core
On 11/23/2014 08:55 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
Sure, but I would never compare our infrastructure needs to Red Hat. =) You
also have to be conservative in order to minimize downtown and impact for
cost reasons. As an open source project we don't have those kinds of worry;
we just have to worry
I can agree with most of these points. Some more things to consider:
- Git is 20x faster than Hg (that's 99% of the reason I switched and hate using
Darcs)
- People attached to Hg can use Hg-Git; I've used it several times with nice
results. It can also be used to easily convert Hg repos to
On 11/23/2014 08:55 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
Fourth, do any core developers feel strongly about not using GitHub?
Dous GitHub support hg? If not, I am strongly opposed.
--
~Ethan~
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Python-Dev
On Sun Nov 23 2014 at 1:06:18 PM Ethan Furman et...@stoneleaf.us wrote:
On 11/23/2014 08:55 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
Sure, but I would never compare our infrastructure needs to Red Hat. =)
You
also have to be conservative in order to minimize downtown and impact for
cost reasons. As an
On Sun Nov 23 2014 at 1:08:58 PM Ethan Furman et...@stoneleaf.us wrote:
On 11/23/2014 08:55 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
Fourth, do any core developers feel strongly about not using GitHub?
Dous GitHub support hg? If not, I am strongly opposed.
Depends on what you mean by support. If you
On Sun Nov 23 2014 at 11:56:49 AM Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
More generally, I'm very, very disappointed to see folks so willing to
abandon fellow community members for the sake of following the crowd.
On Sun Nov 23 2014 at 1:31:36 PM Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
On Sun Nov 23 2014 at 11:56:49 AM Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org
wrote:
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com
wrote:
More generally, I'm very, very disappointed to see folks so willing to
On 11/23/2014 10:14 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Sun Nov 23 2014 at 1:08:58 PM Ethan Furman et...@stoneleaf.us wrote:
Dous GitHub support hg? If not, I am strongly opposed.
Depends on what you mean by support. If you mean natively, then no. If
you mean I want more of a hg CLI then you can
On 11/23/2014 10:31 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
If we want to test the complexity of moving something to GitHub then
probably the best repo to use is the peps one:
And if people want to test the impact of Bitbucket we could do it for
something like the HOWTOs as that too involves infrastructure
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Ethan Furman et...@stoneleaf.us wrote:
On 11/23/2014 10:14 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Sun Nov 23 2014 at 1:08:58 PM Ethan Furman et...@stoneleaf.us
wrote:
Dous GitHub support hg? If not, I am strongly opposed.
Depends on what you mean by support. If
On 11/23/2014 05:55 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
I guess my question is who and what is going to be disrupted if we go with
Guido's suggestion of switching to GitHub for code hosting? Contributors won't
be disrupted at all since most people are more familiar with GitHub vs.
Bitbucket (how many
On 11/23/2014 07:03 PM, Ryan wrote:
I can agree with most of these points. Some more things to consider:
- Git is 20x faster than Hg (that's 99% of the reason I switched and hate
using
Darcs)
You won't get much traction with this argument around here. As long as there
aren't specific
On Nov 23, 2014, at 3:03 PM, Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net wrote:
The next point is that there is no easy way to change the target branch of
a pull request (on github or bitbucket). People will usually make patches
against the master branch unless told differently explicitly, which means
On Sun Nov 23 2014 at 3:04:05 PM Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net wrote:
On 11/23/2014 05:55 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
I guess my question is who and what is going to be disrupted if we go
with
Guido's suggestion of switching to GitHub for code hosting? Contributors
won't
be disrupted at all
On 11/23/2014 09:38 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
On Nov 23, 2014, at 3:03 PM, Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net wrote:
The next point is that there is no easy way to change the target branch of
a pull request (on github or bitbucket). People will usually make patches
against the master branch
On 11/23/2014 09:42 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
The more problematic category are pre-push hooks. We use them for
checking
and rejecting commits with
* disallowed branches
* non-conformant whitespace
* wrong EOL style
* multiple heads per named branch
As far
On Nov 23, 2014, at 4:08 PM, Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net wrote:
On 11/23/2014 09:38 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
On Nov 23, 2014, at 3:03 PM, Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net wrote:
The next point is that there is no easy way to change the target branch of
a pull request (on github or
Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net wrote:
On 11/23/2014 07:03 PM, Ryan wrote:
I can agree with most of these points. Some more things to consider:
- Git is 20x faster than Hg (that's 99% of the reason I switched and
hate using
Darcs)
You won't get much traction with this argument around here.
On 11/23/2014 3:18 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Patches getting held up in the review queue for weeks or months is a
*huge* barrier to contribution, as it prevents the formation of the
positive feedback cycle where having a contribution accepted feels
good, so folks are more likely to want to
On Sun Nov 23 2014 at 4:18:37 PM Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net wrote:
On 11/23/2014 09:42 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
[SNIP]
And I'm still in support no matter what of breaking out the HOWTOs
and the
tutorial into their own repos for easier updating (having to
update the Python
On 11/24/2014 12:21 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Sun Nov 23 2014 at 4:18:37 PM Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net
mailto:g.bra...@gmx.net wrote:
On 11/23/2014 09:42 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
[SNIP]
And I'm still in support no matter what of breaking out the HOWTOs
and
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 08:55:50AM -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
But I strongly believe that if we want to do the right thing for the
long term, we should switch to GitHub.
Encouraging a software, or social, monopoly is never the right thing for
the long term.
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 08:55:50AM -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
But I strongly believe that if we want to do the right thing for the
long term, we should switch to GitHub.
Encouraging a software, or social,
On Nov 23, 2014, at 6:57 PM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 08:55:50AM -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
But I strongly believe that if we want to do the right thing for the
long term, we should switch to GitHub.
Encouraging a software, or social,
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info
wrote:
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 08:55:50AM -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
But I strongly believe that if we want to do the right thing for the
long term, we should switch to GitHub.
Encouraging a software, or social,
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
On Nov 23, 2014, at 3:03 PM, Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net wrote:
The next point is that there is no easy way to change the target branch
of
a pull request (on github or bitbucket). People will usually make
patches
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 06:08:07PM -0600, Brian Curtin wrote:
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
I'm sure that we'll get *more* contributions, but will they be *better*
contributions?
I know that there are people who think that mailing lists are
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 07:39:30PM -0500, Donald Stufft wrote:
I don’t think this is really all that big of a deal. If we want to
move off of Github doing so is easy. There are lots of (not nearly as
good as but probably still better than what we have now) OSS software
that gives you a github
On Nov 23, 2014, at 04:49 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Moving from self-hosted Mercurial repos to externally hosted Mercurial
repos is a low risk change. It reduces maintenance overhead and lowers
barriers to external contribution, both without alienating existing
contributors by forcing them to
On Nov 23, 2014, at 08:55 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
- Moving from Hg to Git is a fair amount of one-time work
For anyone seriously interested in this, even experimentally, I would highly
suggest looking at Eric Raymond's reposurgeon code. You can google it or find
it covered in the vast
On Nov 23, 2014, at 03:59 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
The learning curve on git is still awful
What I find so ironic is that git's model is beautifully simple, but its cli
is abysmal, and its manpages are less than helpful. git-push(1) is over 650
lines and it's nearly impossible to dig out the
git-push(1) is over 650 lines and it's nearly
impossible to dig out the most important
bits.
I use git daily at work. I try to use it in the most simple way possible.
My frustration with the man pages got to the point where I basically use
Google to ask my questions, then bookmark the
On Sunday, November 23, 2014, Skip Montanaro skip.montan...@gmail.com
wrote:
git-push(1) is over 650 lines and it's nearly
impossible to dig out the most important
bits.
I use git daily at work. I try to use it in the most simple way possible.
My frustration with the man pages got to the
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
Then there's this. http://git-man-page-generator.lokaltog.net/
Wow scarily accurate.
http://git-man-page-generator.lokaltog.net/#2d1a13476a5f32c4db27fd7aa89a84f3
Anything to do with git submodules is virtually
Brett Cannon writes:
How do other projects tend to manage their bugfix vs. in-dev branches?
Emacs uses a similar workflow to Python's current one, AIUI:
1. When feasible, developer decides the lowest applicable branch (in
Emacs there are only two), commits and pushes there.
2. When
On 24 November 2014 at 02:55, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
On Sun Nov 23 2014 at 6:18:46 AM Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
Those features are readily accessible without changing the underlying
version control system (whether self-hosted through Kallithea or externally
hosted
On 24 November 2014 at 06:42, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
On Sun Nov 23 2014 at 3:04:05 PM Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net wrote:
As for typo fixes, the world does not end when some typos aren't fixed.
Anyway, for the docs we have an explicit offer to send anything, patch or
just
On 22 Nov 2014 07:37, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
On Nov 21, 2014, at 3:59 PM, Ned Deily n...@acm.org wrote:
Sure, I get that. But we're not even talking here about the main Python
docs since they are part of the CPython repos, only ancillary repos like
PEPs and the developer's
On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 00:59:42 +1000, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, different question. Has anyone here actually even *read* the workflow
PEPs I wrote? They were on the agenda for the language summit, but got
bumped due to lack of time (which I'm still annoyed about, given the
On Nov 22, 2014, at 9:59 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 Nov 2014 07:37, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io
mailto:don...@stufft.io wrote:
On Nov 21, 2014, at 3:59 PM, Ned Deily n...@acm.org
mailto:n...@acm.org wrote:
Sure, I get that. But we're not even talking
On Sat Nov 22 2014 at 10:00:03 AM Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 Nov 2014 07:37, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
On Nov 21, 2014, at 3:59 PM, Ned Deily n...@acm.org wrote:
Sure, I get that. But we're not even talking here about the main
Python
docs since they are
This thread seems to beg for a decision. I think Donald Stufft has it
exactly right: we should move to GitHub, because it is the easiest to use
and most contributors already know it (or are eager to learn thee).
Honestly, the time for core devs (or some other elite corps of dedicated
volunteers)
On Nov 23, 2014, at 12:19 AM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
This thread seems to beg for a decision. I think Donald Stufft has it exactly
right: we should move to GitHub, because it is the easiest to use and most
contributors already know it (or are eager to learn thee).
re: docs hg repos and static HTTP hosting
* I can't remember what the GitHub Pages CDN cache time is
* Does BitBucket support more than one pages repo?
* Does service X support Sphinx .. index and :ref: syntax extensions?
* https://github.com/yoloseem/awesome-sphinxdoc
*
On 23 November 2014 at 15:19, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
This thread seems to beg for a decision. I think Donald Stufft has it
exactly right: we should move to GitHub, because it is the easiest to use
and most contributors already know it (or are eager to learn thee).
Honestly,
On Nov 23, 2014, at 12:59 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 November 2014 at 15:19, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
This thread seems to beg for a decision. I think Donald Stufft has it
exactly right: we should move to GitHub, because it is the easiest to use
and
On Nov 23, 2014, at 1:03 AM, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
On Nov 23, 2014, at 12:59 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 November 2014 at 15:19, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
This thread seems to beg for a decision. I think Donald Stufft has it
exactly
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
The learning curve on git is still awful - it offers no compelling
advantages over hg, and GitHub doesn't offer any huge benefits over
BitBucket for Sphinx based documentation (ReadTheDocs works just as
well with either
On Saturday, November 22, 2014, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 November 2014 at 15:19, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org
javascript:; wrote:
This thread seems to beg for a decision. I think Donald Stufft has it
exactly right: we should move to GitHub, because it is the easiest
The learning curve on git is still awful - it offers no compelling
advantages over hg, and GitHub doesn't offer any huge benefits over
BitBucket for Sphinx based documentation (ReadTheDocs works just as
well with either service).
This was a most helpful resource:
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
On Nov 23, 2014, at 1:25 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
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
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Wes Turner wes.tur...@gmail.com wrote:
hg imuutability is certainly a primarily attractive feature;
along with the keyring support.
What exactly do you mean by immutability? Are you talking about how
git allows a force push that can destroy data? That can be
On 23 November 2014 at 16:10, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
On Saturday, November 22, 2014, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
The learning curve on git is still awful - it offers no compelling
advantages over hg, and GitHub doesn't offer any huge benefits over
BitBucket for
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
On Nov 23, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 November 2014 at 16:10, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
On Saturday, November 22, 2014, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
The learning curve on git is still awful - it offers no compelling
advantages
On Nov 23, 2014, at 2:01 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
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
On 23 November 2014 at 17:14, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
On Nov 23, 2014, at 2:01 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
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.
For those that aren't aware, PEP 474 is a PEP I wrote a while back
suggesting we set up a forge.python.org service that provides easier
management of Mercurial repos that don't have the complex branching
requirements of the main CPython repo. Think repos like the PEPs repo,
or the developer guide
On Fri Nov 21 2014 at 7:37:13 AM Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
For those that aren't aware, PEP 474 is a PEP I wrote a while back
suggesting we set up a forge.python.org service that provides easier
management of Mercurial repos that don't have the complex branching
requirements of
On 21 November 2014 23:29, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
On Fri Nov 21 2014 at 7:37:13 AM Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
If that must be self-hosted constraint is removed, then the obvious
candidate for Mercurial hosting that supports online editing + pull
requests is the PSF's
On 22 November 2014 00:00, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
As far as ignoring PR noise goes, we can still request that folks
squash any commits (keep in mind that the proposal is only to move
pure documentation repos, so long complex PR chains seem unlikely).
Well, requesting that and
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
