| 1 |
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 22:47 -0800, Ryan Phillips wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> We need to pick one VCS and only one. Having multiple systems |
| 4 |
> requires users to install multiple applications and learn each one. |
| 5 |
> Not all of them are easy to pick up. Plus, it would be nice to be |
| 6 |
> able to merge from the overlays to the Portage trunk. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I'm not sure it is realistic at the moment to pick just one DVCS. Apart |
| 9 |
from getting one that works on all systems, it's likely to be hard to |
| 10 |
get everyone to agree. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
There's a slight danger that the discussion of which VCS could distract |
| 13 |
us from the important questions. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
If we're going with the idea that at least at first these overlay are |
| 16 |
going to be run by and for projects/teams/herds then perhaps the choice |
| 17 |
of VCS is not so important. So long as it's feasible with infra of |
| 18 |
course. Since we don't yet expect people to be using several of these |
| 19 |
overlays at once it's probably that each developer or outside |
| 20 |
contributer would not need to use more than one VCS (in addition to cvs |
| 21 |
for portage). |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
As a plus side, this might give us some feedback on which (D)VCSs work |
| 24 |
well for overlay development and might help inform our future decisions |
| 25 |
on possible cvs replacements. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
BTW I hope that with all my recent emails on the issue of which |
| 28 |
arches/platforms can run darcs I've not been giving the impression that |
| 29 |
I'm pushing for darcs to be the "one true" choice. I am certainly |
| 30 |
interested in working with any arch team to get ghc and darcs ported but |
| 31 |
that's a separate issue. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Duncan Coutts : Gentoo Developer (Haskell herd team lead) |
| 35 |
email : dcoutts at gentoo dot org |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives