Infrastructure SCM
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 ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Re: Infrastructure SCM
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 ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Re: Infrastructure SCM
On Mon, 2007-07-02 at 09:13 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: git: +1 Jeff signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Re: Infrastructure SCM
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...): [EMAIL PROTECTED] extras.public]$ ls -1 | wc -l 4660 Is there a performance comparison? And which upstream team is more willing to help us? -of ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Re: Infrastructure SCM
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...): [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Re: Infrastructure SCM
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 ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Re: Infrastructure SCM
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...): [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Re: Infrastructure SCM
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. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net pgpUz38EJaiOD.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Re: Infrastructure SCM
Same as me, any is good. As Seth git is alphabetically first so +1 git On 7/2/07, Luke Macken [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Re: Infrastructure SCM
On 7/2/07, Mike McGrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. The Merchant of Venice ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Re: Infrastructure SCM
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 2006 (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. ;) -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net pgpd1dWdiT7Gi.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Re: Infrastructure SCM
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 2006 (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. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora pgpTQQxzeEVnj.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Reminder -- Vote in the Fedora Board election
I would like to remind everyone to vote in the Fedora Board elections, which are currently ongoing. If you are getting this message multiple times, I'm sorry. It's being sent to various lists. The Fedora Board's membership changes on a rotating basis. This election is for 3 of the 9 Fedora Board seats. The Fedora Board is the Fedora Project's executive committee and is ultimately accountable for everything that happens within Fedora, and delegates responsibillity to various sub-projects accordingly. Information about the candidates and voting is available here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Elections Voting will end at 11:59 PM UTC on Sunday July 8th. Anyone who has signed the Fedora CLA is eligible to vote. Thank you, Max -- Max Spevack + http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MaxSpevack + gpg key -- http://spevack.org/max.asc + fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21 ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Re: Infrastructure SCM
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 ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Re: Infrastructure SCM
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 -- Karel Zak [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
