On Tue 2017-08-08 15:27:46 +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>  (i) Should we use git for revision control instead of mercurial?

this was the question i wanted to trigger -- i'm happy we're having the

>  (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?

I don't really care about how the thing is hosted publicly as long as
it's a DVCS.  I have no strong objection to bitbucket, but i'd also have
no strong objection to gitlab or github or any other hosted service.

One thing that might really sway me here would be if we could support a
distributed view of the bug-tracker as well, but i don't know of any
service that does that effectively right now.

I'd also like it if such a decision doesn't derail the git/hg

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

If people are up for review on the mailing list, i think yes we should
do this.  Having an archive of patches in my mailbox is super useful
when i'm working offline, and i'd be happy to see some more active
discussion in the one place where we all are subscribed, for the health
of sks.

I regret that my ocaml skills are too weak to offer much in the way of
meaningful review, though :/

But anyway, this question is also orthogonal to whether we want to use
hg or git, no?

All the best,


Sks-devel mailing list

Reply via email to