Okay, a couple weeks back, right after we released TG 2.2.0, we
discovered a few things about the sourceforge system that makes it no
longer desirable for using as our tracker. We had been thinking of
using Github back when we switched last year, but (at the time) we
chose SF.
Now, we're going to
hi michael,
i am really happy to see this change. i'm glad that we are moving to github.
i vote for number three.
On Monday, September 10, 2012 4:56:24 PM UTC+3, Michael Pedersen wrote:
Okay, a couple weeks back, right after we released TG 2.2.0, we
discovered a few things about the
Hi,
Le 10/09/2012 15:56, Michael Pedersen a écrit :
Okay, a couple weeks back, right after we released TG 2.2.0, we
discovered a few things about the sourceforge system that makes it no
longer desirable for using as our tracker.
I am interested in knowing the few things, could you explain
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Christophe de Vienne
cdevie...@gmail.com wrote:
I am interested in knowing the few things, could you explain the
reasons for this decision ?
To some degree, yes. Parts are lost to memory, despite it being only a
couple weeks. Among them:
* I have tried two
Le 10/09/2012 16:54, Michael Pedersen a écrit :
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Christophe de Vienne
cdevie...@gmail.com wrote:
I am interested in knowing the few things, could you explain the
reasons for this decision ?
To some degree, yes. Parts are lost to memory, despite it being only a
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Christophe de Vienne
cdevie...@gmail.com wrote:
Have you considered bitbucket too ? IIRC the tg repositories were once
hosted there, and it has the same avantages over SF (the ones you
mention at least).
Actually, we did consider it. I chose not to go with
Am 10.09.2012 17:11, schrieb Christophe de Vienne:
Have you considered bitbucket too ? IIRC the tg repositories were once
hosted there, and it has the same avantages over SF (the ones you
mention at least).
That would mean switching from git back to hg again. Much easier to stay
with git.
Also currently travis.ci doesn't provide support for bitbucket, and
travis was one of the reasons for moving to GitHub.
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Christoph Zwerschke c...@online.de wrote:
Am 10.09.2012 17:11, schrieb Christophe de Vienne:
Have you considered bitbucket too ? IIRC the tg
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Christoph Zwerschke c...@online.dewrote:
Am 10.09.2012 17:11, schrieb Christophe de Vienne:
Have you considered bitbucket too ? IIRC the tg repositories were once
hosted there, and it has the same avantages over SF (the ones you
mention at least).
That
Am 10.09.2012 20:45, schrieb Kevin Horn:
FYI, bitbucket supports git repos now, as well as hg ones.
Thanks for the update, that move had indeed slipped under my radar.
-- Chris
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
TurboGears Trunk group.
To post to
Hello Michael,
Thanks for giving some information about the reasons for the switch.
When I saw your announcement my first thought, like some others, was
why. I'm involved in a bunch of project across a variety of sites
(including SF but not github) which is why I was curious.
We got the why.
I
1) Why not merge all three into one repository. This may allow (and
facilitate) users to do minor changes in docs as well easily. Additionally,
It will have the benefit of docs and code up-to-date for each other. As all
three are very well dependent on each other, it should be merged into one.
This post winds up being in reply to one particular post, but that's a
quirk of replying to a topic. I'm going to try to address points
raised by several people.
First, on the topic of bitbucket: Yes, they use git, and hg. They
provide a number of very nice tools. No argument there. Despite this,
13 matches
Mail list logo
