On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 15:34, "Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote: >>> Second, I think it would be good to explicitly mention the option of >>> deferring this PEP. Based on previous discussion, it sounds like there >>> are a fair number of people who think that there is a DVCS in Python's >>> future, but not now (where "now" means over the next couple of years). >> >> Sure, I can add a note somewhere that says if a clear winner doesn't >> come about the PEP can be revisited to a later date. >> > > I think the request is slightly different: consider that a potential > outcome should be "svn for the next five years, then reconsider" - not > because none of the DVCS is a clear winner, but because there is too > much resistance to DVCSes in general, at the moment. I already put a note in that no DVCS might be chosen once the PEP is finished. Whether it is because no DVCS is a clear improvement over svn or people just don't like a DVCS seems like a minor thing to worry about to spell out in the PEP. -Brett
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4