On 16 February 2013 14:27, Jakub Wilk <jw...@debian.org> wrote: > * Scott Kitterman <deb...@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. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CANBHLUjUfbFBnanRP2P9pu2M_PmmvEUWC5W4Byi=-ns2hqg...@mail.gmail.com
