RetroSearch Browse

Sun Nov 23 07:25:55 CET 2014 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-November/137076.html

On 23 November 2014 at 16:03, Donald Stufft <donald at stufft.io> wrote:
>> On Nov 23, 2014, at 12:59 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Note that if folks prefer Git, BitBucket supports both. I would object
>> strongly to unilaterally forcing existing contributors to switch from
>> Mercurial to git.
>
> Going to all the trouble to move to an external repository and choosing the
> least popular option out of the two main ones seems like a bad idea in
> general.

Moving repos from hg.python.org to bitbucket.org is just a matter of
switching some URLs around, and changing some backend systems to cope
with the new location. The end result should be to make life better
for existing contributors *and* new contributors using the web UI, and
be largely transparent to folks using command line tools.

By contrast, proposals to switch from Mercurial to Git impose a
*massive* burden on contributors that don't already know git. That
significant increase in the time investment required will provide *NO*
practical benefit for existing contributors (this is coming from
someone that has used git and Mercurial in parallel for years - trust
me, they're functionally isomorphic), and only make life marginally
easier for potential new contributors (you can log in to BitBucket
with your GitHub ID, and the functional isomorphism means that many
folks already use tools like git-remote-hg  to use the git command
line to interact with the hg.python.org Mercurial repos).

Regards,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-November/137076.html below:

[Python-Dev] Move selected documentation repos to PSF BitBucket account?