RetroSearch Browse

Wed Sep 29 12:58:48 CEST 2010 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-September/104246.html

On 2010-09-29, at 11:50 , Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 09:03:29 +0200
> Dirkjan Ochtman <dirkjan at ochtman.nl> wrote:
>> 
>> Anyway, I don't think using Bitbucket buys us much. It could be nice
>> to keep a mirror there for redundancy and because it might make
>> contributing slightly easier for non-committers, but it won't allow
>> doing all kinds of custom hooks the way we could do with hg.p.o,
>> AFAICT.
> 
> Using Bitbucket seems mainly useful if you need the whole suite of
> services (issue tracker, wiki, etc.).
> 

The most useful features are probably the follow and fork, but for a project as big as Python I'm not sure those are going to be used a lot. The question then becomes whether Python development workflow will remain as-is or would more to a "pull-request" model via bitbucket.

If it's negative, then I see no intrinsic value in the main server being on bitbucket.

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-September/104246.html below:

[Python-Dev] Atlassian and bitbucket merge