On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 6:58 AM, Zachary Ware <zachary.ware+pyl...@gmail.com> wrote: >> It's not entirely clear whether that message is an acceptance of PEP 481 > or not. > > I've lost track of the pep numbers, but Brett's decision is final; the > canonical CPython repository will be moving to GitHub in the near future. > Note that we will *not* be using the GitHub issue tracker or wiki, just the > hosting and review/pull request system. There are still several details to > be worked out, though.
Okay, so that means it broadly is an acceptance of PEP 481. Hopefully someone who's been involved in the discussions can check over the PEP text and adjust as necessary to make it accurate to what's going to happen. On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 7:03 AM, <paul.hermeneu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Mark, it is good to know that a decision has been made so that we can move > forward. > > Is there a summary document that discusses the options examined and why > others did not meet the requirements? I am -NOT- trying to dredge up > arguments about the choice. I am guessing that there have been some. > > If this fact-based decision was based solely on the fact that the BDFL > prefers GitHub, please just say so. It is clear that git is a capable tool. That's what the PEP is for. Here's the link: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0481/ Yes, git is a capable tool. But so is Mercurial, and the arguments weren't primarily based on differences in functionality (which are pretty minor). It's mainly about the network effect. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
