On 08/08/2017 03:27 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> There are likely a few different questions resulting from this (my own
> opinions in separate email).

And here they come

>  (i) Should we use git for revision control instead of mercurial?

I'm personally more involved in projects using git these days, I am
however not sure if this constitute grounds for shifting up platform of
its own, but I'm curious what other's think. Mercurial has some great
features (a reason e.g facebook:
uses it, although we don't exactly have a scaling issue)

>  (ii)(A) Should we continue to use bitbucket (it also supports git so
> not dependent on (i)) or use another provider (if some of the questions
> are regarding the UI of bitbucket / its use) (B) if not bitbucket, what
> other alternative and why?

Open question, I don't see an immediate reason to move except for group
effects of most others using github so no need to have a new account. I
don't necessarily see centralization as a good thing overall, nor do I
like the github ToS

>  (iii) Should we submit patches to the mailing list for review instead
> of using any platform's specific functionality?

I do think we should use the mailing list more actively to get more
involvement in the development; in particular with the low level of
commits proper review can only be a good thing. This can likely also
result in more complete commit message etc for individual commits with
the discussion in email archives as reference.

Kristian Fiskerstrand
Blog: https://blog.sumptuouscapital.com
Twitter: @krifisk
Public OpenPGP keyblock at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3
"In politics stupidity is not a handicap."
(Napoleon Bonaparte)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Sks-devel mailing list

Reply via email to