Nick Coghlan schrieb:
> Georg Brandl wrote:
>> It doesn't only *feel* slow, it *is* slow. And not only compared to merging
>> with a DVCS, which doesn't need network. Half a minute to merge a three-line
>> change is not productive.
>
> Don't forget that *blocking* a revision with svnmerge seems
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le dimanche 01 mars 2009 à 00:11 +0100, "Martin v. Löwis" a écrit :
>> That's why I keep arguing that the committers making the original
>> commits should also merge their changes, individually, into the
>> respective branches. That way
>> - commits become separate, and reve
Le dimanche 01 mars 2009 à 00:11 +0100, "Martin v. Löwis" a écrit :
> That's why I keep arguing that the committers making the original
> commits should also merge their changes, individually, into the
> respective branches. That way
> - commits become separate, and reverting them becomes possible
> Frankly, there are very few people who routinely (like Benjamin) or even only
> sometimes (like me) merge larger amounts of stuff between our four branches.
> While that's no surprise, given how clumsy svnmerge makes it, others shouldn't
> just dismiss the merging problem with "we have svnmerge".
Georg Brandl wrote:
> It doesn't only *feel* slow, it *is* slow. And not only compared to merging
> with a DVCS, which doesn't need network. Half a minute to merge a three-line
> change is not productive.
Don't forget that *blocking* a revision with svnmerge seems to take
nearly as long as actua
Antoine Pitrou schrieb:
> Le jeudi 26 février 2009 à 17:10 +0100, M.-A. Lemburg a écrit :
>> This is probably a matter of Internet connection bandwidth then.
>
> Not really.
> To give a point of comparison, when I clone (using Mercurial) the Python
> trunk at http://code.python.org/hg/trunk, it ta
> What on earth happened between May and June 2008? The number of
> "visits" went down dramatically (at least 3x), and stayed at that
> level ever since.
As we don't have the log files anymore, it's hard to tell. My guess
is that it is some automated procedure that completed or got turned
off. For
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Bob Ippolito wrote:
>> I have more or less the same opinion as Guido regarding svn merge. It
>> sucks. We bump up against problems with svn merge tracking on a
>> regular basis at work. We'd have switched to a DVCS by now if it
>> wasn't for tool support (trac mostly) and the
s...@pobox.com wrote:
> Martin> My own personal experience tells me git and bzr are much worse
> Martin> than subversion (each in different respects).
>
> Perhaps you could relay these shortcomings to Brett or edit them into the
> PEP directly.
As I said: I refrain from commenting at this
Brett Cannon schrieb:
> I had a long reply all written out, but instead I decided to discard it so
> as to not continue to drag this discussion out. Why? The DVCS PEP is not
> even finished yet!
>
> Can you guys please let me finish the PEP before you start worrying about
> whether we are going to
Martin> My own personal experience tells me git and bzr are much worse
Martin> than subversion (each in different respects).
Perhaps you could relay these shortcomings to Brett or edit them into the
PEP directly.
Skip
___
python-committers mail
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 1:35 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> Fredrik Lundh wrote:
>> Btw, one of my concerns is that a move away from Svn breaks the process
>> for people who pull sources from Svn to build their own Pythons. I know
>> a few teams that do that, and switching to another system isn't
Le samedi 28 février 2009 à 10:09 +0100, Fredrik Lundh a écrit :
> What's Hg:s story on Svn integration? To what extent can you use it
> with a Svn master repo?
hgsubversion is supposed to allow bidirectional integration:
http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/index.cgi/HgSubversion
If you just ne
Bob Ippolito wrote:
> I have more or less the same opinion as Guido regarding svn merge. It
> sucks. We bump up against problems with svn merge tracking on a
> regular basis at work. We'd have switched to a DVCS by now if it
> wasn't for tool support (trac mostly) and the fact that we use a lot
> o
Why not add a requirement to the PEP such that if a DVCS is chosen
then a read-only SVN mirror or gateway should be maintained? Would
that be a reasonable compromise?
I have more or less the same opinion as Guido regarding svn merge. It
sucks. We bump up against problems with svn merge tracking on
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> Btw, one of my concerns is that a move away from Svn breaks the process
> for people who pull sources from Svn to build their own Pythons. I know
> a few teams that do that, and switching to another system isn't just an
> apt-get away for them. Do we have enough log info to b
Btw, one of my concerns is that a move away from Svn breaks the process for
people who pull sources from Svn to build their own Pythons. I know a few
teams that do that, and switching to another system isn't just an apt-get
away for them. Do we have enough log info to be able to determine how commo
What's Hg:s story on Svn integration? To what extent can you use it with a
Svn master repo?
(Btw, I would have said that Git is probably the one that's moving the
fastest right now, and where the most interesting work is being done - but
their Windows story is a tragedy (at least last time I check
18 matches
Mail list logo
