On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 11:37:05PM +0100, Patryk Zawadzki wrote: > On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Olav Vitters <o...@bkor.dhs.org> wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 05:29:02PM -0500, David Zeuthen wrote: > >> Uh, but that's exactly how I understood the proposal and I believe that > >> the points I made (that you didn't respond to) still stands: That it's > >> crazy to officially want to support git, bzr and hg *at* the same time > >> *from* the same repo. It's just asking for trouble. > > That isn't true. It is Bzr on server, with Git support. Nothing about > > Hg, nothing about doing partly Git, partly Bzr. > > The potential problem I see is all of the remote branches will use > different DVCS that do not support git + hg + bzr. So eventually all
Again: No Hg. > of us will be forced to use all three tools in order to merge changes > from remote branches (unless we expect *all* people to provide *all* > changes as patches in which case I don't see the real gain of > switching to a distributed tool). Interesting point. I actually saw it as a benefit (store locally using whatever you like). On GNOME server (personal stuff), doesn't matter. Anyway, if you're going against the maintainer who wants to merge, too bad for you IMO. -- Regards, Olav _______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list