On 01/01/2016 11:43 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 07:09 am, Chris Angelico wrote: > >> Yes, git is a capable tool. But so is Mercurial, and the arguments >> weren't primarily based on differences in functionality (which are >> pretty minor). It's mainly about the network effect. > > You call it the network effect. I call it monoculture.
Indeed. The whole purpose of git is to allow development to be distributed. Is it a matter of hosting space? Is it too expensive for python.org to host their own public-facing git repository? Especially if python.org has no plans to use github's issue tracker this move makes little sense to me. A pull request can be made from any developer's own git repository without github, or even from github if other developers really want to work there. I can understand why OSS projects like github given its complete project-management options. But if it's just the repository you're after, I get far more mileage from my own locally-hosted git repositories. It's not at all hard to push to a read-only public http git repository. Pull requests can be made against individual developers' http repos or hosted git providers. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
