On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:17 AM, anatoly techtonik <techtonik at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Georg Brandl <g.brandl at gmx.net> wrote: >>> >>> What is the problem with realtime synchronization and working with >>> already up to date Mercurial mirror of central SVN repository? >> >> The specifics of the conversion process are not nailed down yet. >> Therefore, the exact translation of SVN to Hg commits will change, >> and with it the Mercurial revision IDs, for example. > > Does anybody here know how Mercurial calculates the IDs? From that I > remember it is author + message + diff content. What can change there? > >>>>> Development will continue in SVN >>>>> repository until everybody is ready for final migration in X weeks >>>>> later. Is that right? >>>> >>>> No; as soon as we switch, SVN will be read-only. >>> >>> Why don't allow people who already know Mercurial use Mercurial and >>> those who prefer Subversion use that. If Mercurial allows to submit to >>> Subversion - why people can't use that while we writing tutorials and >>> answering question about workflow? >> >> I don't think that we have enough manpower to maintain such a bridge >> indefinitely. > > It doesn't require manpower. It requires automation. Considering that > the biggest problem now is to get sane lossless conversion, we should > elaborate on getting this in place. After that I would still follow > the path of setting realtime mirror for X weeks that could be > replicated by bitbucket, launchpad and other services to see how > people pickup the changes. > > As PEP 384 says - the transition is mostly to make lives of outside > contributors easier. Core developers can wait for a while. No, we can't. We *have* been waiting.
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