Re: How does team maintenace of python module works?
On 16 February 2013 14:27, Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org> wrote:
> * Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com>, 2013-02-16, 09:10:
>>
>> On Saturday, February 16, 2013 12:43:02 PM Thomas Kluyver wrote:
>>>
>>> The following four positions have all been advocated in this thread:
>>>
>>> A - Maintain the status quo, in which DPMT packages may only be
>>> maintained in SVN.
>>> B - As A, but encourage the creation of a separate team where Python
>>> modules can be maintained in git.
>>> C - Allow DPMT-maintained packages to live in SVN or git, so new packages
>>> can be committed to git if the packager prefers. Optionally, we could make
>>> provisions to migrate existing packages.
>>> D - Migrate all the DPMT-maintained packages to git.
>>>
>>> (I suggest we don't consider other VCSs - while we might have our
>>> favourites, I sampled the list of Debian teams, and found very few using
>>> anything other than svn or git. So tools & workflows for other VCSs are
>>> likely to be less well developed.)
>>>
>>> So I would vote CDBA, in order of preference.
>>
>>
>> E - Migrated to bzr, but I want someone else to to all the work.
>>
>> EA
>
>
> F - Migrate to Mercurial, but I want someone else to do all the work.
>
A, F.1 - Migrate to Mercurial, if and only if mercurial queues are
fully functional and are used to maintain the debian/patches
sub-repository.
realisticly i am opposed to a mix of version control systems.
someone to do the work - means starting a mirror which works in
read-only / mirror mode only.
When gnome.org was migrating from svn - they had multiple mirrors
running (bzr, and git, not sure if an hg was there as well)
Regards,
Dmitrijs.
Reply to: