Stephen> It would be possible for the svn-based workflow to require that
Stephen> after testing in one's workspace, one does an svn update, and
Stephen> if any changes are made to files in the workspace, the whole
Stephen> build and test procedure must be repeated. I don't see that
Stephen> that has advantages over the hg workflow, though -- it should
Stephen> cause an addition build-test cycle in exactly the same revision
Stephen> sequences that the hg workflow does.
It, however requires every developer to become facile, if not expert, with
the ins and outs of the Python/Mercurial workflow. This discourages casual
or intermittent contributions. My main contribution to the Python codebase
over the past couple years has been to intercept trivial "bug reports" sent
to the webmaster address calling out typos in the documentation or the
website. Handling such reports was trivial with Subversion. Update, edit,
check in. That is no longer the case with Mercurial. (And for the website
will no longer be the case in the fairly near future if I understand
correctly.)
I believe it runs counter to the professed intention of the switch away from
a centralized version control system, to make it easier for more people to
contribute to Python. It certainly seems harder for this old dog.
Skip
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
