Hmm, I think the plan has been to move trac and hg to the new server eventually and have trac conect to hg directly again then.
I feel somewhat conflicted about this. I like that bitbucket keeps track of branches for us, and that it makes it easy for anybody who wants to to publish new branches. But I think the ticket tracker is a bit rudamentary. --Mark Ramm On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Christoph Zwerschke <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mark Ramm schrieb: >> Yea, that's the official development version for 2.1. >> >> I'll give you push access. And for those who don't have push access, >> feel free to branch make changes, and then ping this list for one of >> us to merge your changes back in. > > Ok, thanks. > > But what about issue tracking? Our TG trac is still bound to the SVN > repository, so linking to changesets in tickets will not work any more. > Will we make a new trac for TG2 or use the bitbucket issue tracker? > > I think we would benefit from creating a new issue tracker for TG2 > anyway, because most of the old tickets are irrelevant for TG2 now. > > -- Christoph > > > > > > -- Mark Ramm-Christensen email: mark at compoundthinking dot com blog: www.compoundthinking.com/blog --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears Trunk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears-trunk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
