On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 03:27:08PM +0100, Jakub Wilk 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. The mercurial package is maintained in svn, mainly because it's part of PAPT so it uses its infrastructure. But mercurial is quite popular in the python world, as python itself is maintained in hg. Now being realistic, the last time I looked at hg-buildpackage or mercurial-buildpackage they were light years behind git-bp or svn-bp so migrating to mercurial would be a lot more work than migrating to git. I use a mixture of hgsubversion and proper subversion for mercurial but I don't recommend it. FCDAB Cheers, Javi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature