Hi All, I would be completely in favor of moving to Git and to Github in particular.
I use git professionally and am less comfortable with mercurial and I think that it is the case of many people. Its wide adoption is a most important advantage of Github. Besides, git allows for things like rebases, cherry-picks and many branch manipulation tools which really simplify working with multiple forks, branch, and testing. The fact that the Scientific Python community is on Github is also a big plus. It will be easier to cross-reference issues between projects for example. Overall, I think that it would attract new contributors, from the community already working on the Python scientific stack and it is a big plus. The only minus is the cost of transition for Carlos. Sylvain On Sunday, September 28, 2014 4:01:09 PM UTC-4, Ioannis Filippidis wrote: > > @Adrian: I was also a Merurial user for some years, and had the same > viewpoint about switching to git. However: > > - git allows control over your workflow that is not even evident as an > alternative with Mercurial. So git is worth giving a try, before using > hg-git. > > - git encourages good practices that Mercurial does not. > For example staging, that allows filtering large sets of changes into > palatable commits. When I first switched, staging appeared as completely > absurd, > until understanding its purpose. Now it alone is one of the features I > would strongly argue in favor of git. The merits of well-defined commits > are nicely described by this article: > http://who-t.blogspot.com/2009/12/on-commit-messages.html > > With stackoverflow around, it is fairly quick to find how to do even > non-standard things with git. In support of git's popularity, this thread: > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/927358/undo-the-last-git-commit has > 1.5 million views. > > - Other points are elaborated here: > https://code.google.com/p/spyderlib/issues/detail?id=1911 > > > @Gonzalo: Moving from hg to git is easy, just a single command. > I have used a lot fast-export: > https://github.com/frej/fast-export > it is dependable. > > > @Joseph: Regarding the issues, I'm copying my answer from #1911: > https://code.google.com/p/spyderlib/issues/detail?id=1911 > > """ > I would be happy to convert the repo itself (although I guess that is not > what you refer to). About the issues, I could try: > https://github.com/arthur-debert/google-code-issues-migrator > (or maybe instead: http://trentm.com/2012/03/google-code-to-github.html) > I do not have the time to transfer the issues manually. > > I don't think though that the issues need to be transferred. It may be > better to move the code there, and direct there for opening new issues, > while issues here are being closed. This will make the move smoother. I > understand that cross-referencing may be somewhat inconvenient for old > issues, but you can still simply link to them. Also, if the script linked > above is actually used and proves functional (from its popularity I expect > it will), then cross linking should work fine. > > And I'm sure there will exist some straightforward solution to edit git > history so that any commit messages referring to hg commit hashes are > replaced with the git commit hashes (this concern was mentioned somewhere > in the discussions linked above). > """ > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "spyder" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/spyderlib. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
