starting this up again. Since we want it to be distributed we're left with either git or mercurial. Can I take a non-binding vote from the people on this list as to a preference on each? Remember, our needs in Infrastructure are really pretty simple, so at a glance. What do you guys think?
git:
mercurial:
-Mike
On Mon, 2007-07-02 at 09:13 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
starting this up again. Since we want it to be distributed we're left with either git or mercurial. Can I take a non-binding vote from the people on this list as to a preference on each? Remember, our needs in Infrastructure are really pretty simple, so at a glance. What do you guys think?
git: +1
and for no reason other than it is alphabetically first.
-sv
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 09:13:10AM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
starting this up again. Since we want it to be distributed we're left with either git or mercurial. Can I take a non-binding vote from the people on this list as to a preference on each? Remember, our needs in Infrastructure are really pretty simple, so at a glance. What do you guys think?
git:
+1
mercurial:
-Mike
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
On Monday 02 July 2007 9:13:10 am Mike McGrath wrote:
starting this up again. Since we want it to be distributed we're left with either git or mercurial. Can I take a non-binding vote from the people on this list as to a preference on each? Remember, our needs in Infrastructure are really pretty simple, so at a glance. What do you guys think?
git:
mercurial:
+1 i find it a little easier though its really a coin toss
On Mon, 2007-07-02 at 09:19 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On Monday 02 July 2007 9:13:10 am Mike McGrath wrote:
starting this up again. Since we want it to be distributed we're left with either git or mercurial. Can I take a non-binding vote from the people on this list as to a preference on each? Remember, our needs in Infrastructure are really pretty simple, so at a glance. What do you guys think?
git:
mercurial:
+1 i find it a little easier though its really a coin toss
bzr: +1 :-) Easier than git or mercurial from a former svn user's perspective.
With either git or mercurial, I'll spend some time learning it and then just use whichever is implemented.
-Toshio
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 09:19:43AM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On Monday 02 July 2007 9:13:10 am Mike McGrath wrote:
starting this up again. Since we want it to be distributed we're left with either git or mercurial. Can I take a non-binding vote from the people on this list as to a preference on each? Remember, our needs in Infrastructure are really pretty simple, so at a glance. What do you guys think?
git:
mercurial:
+1 i find it a little easier though its really a coin toss
+1. There's also better intergration with other tools like trac, and it's written in Fedora's favourite script language, so when something comes up we'd be able to attack it instead of submitting feature requests.
On Monday 02 July 2007 10:50:39 Axel Thimm wrote:
+1. There's also better intergration with other tools like trac, and it's written in Fedora's favourite script language, so when something comes up we'd be able to attack it instead of submitting feature requests.
The Trac integration is only marginally better than git's. It's still missing a lot and could use just about as much love as the alpha git plugin.
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 11:24:39AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Monday 02 July 2007 10:50:39 Axel Thimm wrote:
+1. There's also better intergration with other tools like trac, and it's written in Fedora's favourite script language, so when something comes up we'd be able to attack it instead of submitting feature requests.
The Trac integration is only marginally better than git's. It's still missing a lot and could use just about as much love as the alpha git plugin.
In the trac camp there's love for mercurial but not for git, don't ask me why. Also when 0.10 hit the streets mercurial support for it was working and managable, while git was in "experimental planning stage".
But don't rust me, just look at the metrics, the changelog of the mercurial plugin at trac goes until 20070628, e.g. a couple of days ago, while the gitplugin's last date is 20061111 (8 months) and OLPC's git efforts go until 20060822 (10 months).
So, it's actually quite far from calling the difference in support between mercurial and git "marginal", perhaps it's more like existing and not. ;)
On Monday 02 July 2007 14:16:49 Axel Thimm wrote:
In the trac camp there's love for mercurial but not for git, don't ask me why. Also when 0.10 hit the streets mercurial support for it was working and managable, while git was in "experimental planning stage".
But don't rust me, just look at the metrics, the changelog of the mercurial plugin at trac goes until 20070628, e.g. a couple of days ago, while the gitplugin's last date is 20061111 (8 months) and OLPC's git efforts go until 20060822 (10 months).
So, it's actually quite far from calling the difference in support between mercurial and git "marginal", perhaps it's more like existing and not. ;)
From an end user's perspective neither one is complete. Both often throw up tracebacks on 'unimplimented' stuff. Admittedly HG this is getting fixed, but...
All it really takes is somebody who cares about git and trac to carry on the efforts. OLPC's efforts were more to embed gitweb into Trac instead of using Trac's browser. While neat, not what we want. But I'd rather not let what Trac does or does not currently support or fully support or more / less support dictate what SCM we choose to use in Fedora Infrastructure group.
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 09:13:10AM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
starting this up again. Since we want it to be distributed we're left with either git or mercurial. Can I take a non-binding vote from the people on this list as to a preference on each? Remember, our needs in Infrastructure are really pretty simple, so at a glance. What do you guys think?
git:
+(whatever a lurker's vote is worth)
-James
On 07/02/2007 04:13 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
starting this up again. Since we want it to be distributed we're left with either git or mercurial. Can I take a non-binding vote from the people on this list as to a preference on each? Remember, our needs in Infrastructure are really pretty simple, so at a glance. What do you guys think?
git:
mercurial:
I have no experience with both. I would say: The one that is faster. Especially with a few thousand dirs (and growing...): [oliver@pils extras.public]$ ls -1 | wc -l 4660
Is there a performance comparison? And which upstream team is more willing to help us?
-of
Oliver Falk wrote:
On 07/02/2007 04:13 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
starting this up again. Since we want it to be distributed we're left with either git or mercurial. Can I take a non-binding vote from the people on this list as to a preference on each? Remember, our needs in Infrastructure are really pretty simple, so at a glance. What do you guys think?
git:
mercurial:
I have no experience with both. I would say: The one that is faster. Especially with a few thousand dirs (and growing...): [oliver@pils extras.public]$ ls -1 | wc -l 4660
Actually this SCM is just for our infrastructure stuff (not the packages) so it replaces what is now in: http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewcvs/?root=fedora
-Mike
Mike McGrath wrote:
Actually this SCM is just for our infrastructure stuff (not the packages) so it replaces what is now in: http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewcvs/?root=fedora
Wouldn't it be better to make the decision for both together and settle down on one SCM instead?
Rahul
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Mike McGrath wrote:
Actually this SCM is just for our infrastructure stuff (not the packages) so it replaces what is now in: http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewcvs/?root=fedora
Wouldn't it be better to make the decision for both together and settle down on one SCM instead?
Well, not really. The needs are very different and the infrastructure team has already committed itself to supporting hg, git, svn and cvs so for us, I guess we just have to get used to knowing them all.
-Mike
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 08:10:17PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Mike McGrath wrote:
Actually this SCM is just for our infrastructure stuff (not the packages) so it replaces what is now in: http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewcvs/?root=fedora
Wouldn't it be better to make the decision for both together and settle down on one SCM instead?
That would be good, of course, but I think the packages' SCM has quite a bit higher set of specificiation constraints than infratsructure, so a common SCM would mean deciding one for packages.
If Mike wants to do something for infrastructure now, bundling this decision with the packages' SCM will stall him. The evaluation for the latter will take quite a while still and require being blessed by many key positions. While Mike could cast a decision for infrastruture by the end of the day.
On 07/02/2007 04:37 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
Oliver Falk wrote:
On 07/02/2007 04:13 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
starting this up again. Since we want it to be distributed we're left with either git or mercurial. Can I take a non-binding vote from the people on this list as to a preference on each? Remember, our needs in Infrastructure are really pretty simple, so at a glance. What do you guys think?
git:
mercurial:
I have no experience with both. I would say: The one that is faster. Especially with a few thousand dirs (and growing...): [oliver@pils extras.public]$ ls -1 | wc -l 4660
Actually this SCM is just for our infrastructure stuff (not the packages) so it replaces what is now in: http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewcvs/?root=fedora
Oops. Sorry, got it wrong...
-of
On Monday 02 July 2007 10:13:10 Mike McGrath wrote:
git:
Git. Sane in-repo branching, which we may want to do for having different tools for different platforms (RHEL5 vs "Latest Fedora"). Easier to host a clone if somebody wants to share a patch with us. FWIW consistency with the release engineering group having our stuff in git.
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 09:13:10AM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
starting this up again. Since we want it to be distributed we're left with either git or mercurial. Can I take a non-binding vote from the people on this list as to a preference on each? Remember, our needs in Infrastructure are really pretty simple, so at a glance. What do you guys think?
git:
mercurial:
I don't care either way. Mercurial has been treating me well for bodhi development, but I've also been interested in learning git.
luke
Same as me, any is good.
As Seth git is alphabetically first so +1 git
On 7/2/07, Luke Macken lmacken@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 09:13:10AM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
starting this up again. Since we want it to be distributed we're left
with
either git or mercurial. Can I take a non-binding vote from the people
on
this list as to a preference on each? Remember, our needs in Infrastructure are really pretty simple, so at a glance. What do you
guys
think?
git:
mercurial:
I don't care either way. Mercurial has been treating me well for bodhi development, but I've also been interested in learning git.
luke
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
On 7/2/07, Mike McGrath mmcgrath@redhat.com wrote:
starting this up again. Since we want it to be distributed we're left with either git or mercurial. Can I take a non-binding vote from the people on this list as to a preference on each? Remember, our needs in Infrastructure are really pretty simple, so at a glance. What do you guys think?
git:
mercurial:
As token CentOS undercover agent, trying to take over the world! I vote for mercurial.
Mike McGrath wrote:
starting this up again. Since we want it to be distributed we're left with either git or mercurial. Can I take a non-binding vote from the people on this list as to a preference on each? Remember, our needs in Infrastructure are really pretty simple, so at a glance. What do you guys think?
git:
+1, I don't feel like learning *another* SCM, but I've used git a couple of times, so thats my vote.
mercurial:
-Mike
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 09:13:10AM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
starting this up again. Since we want it to be distributed we're left with either git or mercurial. Can I take a non-binding vote from the people on this list as to a preference on each? Remember, our needs in Infrastructure are really pretty simple, so at a glance. What do you guys think?
git:
+1
Ted's journey from hg to git: http://tytso.livejournal.com/29467.html
Karel
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Axel Thimm -
Dennis Gilmore -
Florian La Roche -
James Bowes -
Jeffrey Ollie -
Jesse Keating -
Karel Zak -
Luke Macken -
Mike McGrath -
Nigel Jones -
Oliver Falk -
Paulo Santos -
Rahul Sundaram -
seth vidal -
Stephen John Smoogen -
Toshio Kuratomi