Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in 2016

2016-01-04 Thread R. David Murray
On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 18:18:02 +, Brett Cannon wrote: > On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 at 09:50 Eli Bendersky wrote: > > > > I have to admit that I'm not a big expert on Mercurial --> Git converters > > and the way I maintain this mirror may not be the best approach, so

Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in 2016

2016-01-04 Thread Alex Gaynor
+1 Alex On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: > > > On Jan 4, 2016, at 3:51 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > > > > I once looked at it and decided it wasn't something I wanted to touch ;) > so > > paying Eric to do it might not be a bad idea. > > >

Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in2016

2016-01-04 Thread Donald Stufft
I'm not sure that you'd see much savings. You'd only get deltas that were never merged to master excluded. Point taken though. Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 4, 2016, at 4:18 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 at 13:14 Donald Stufft

Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in 2016

2016-01-04 Thread Donald Stufft
> On Jan 4, 2016, at 7:06 PM, Trent Nelson wrote: > > Hey Brett, all, > > I’m playing a bit of catch-up with e-mail, but it occurred to me some of the > work I did getting PyParallel switched over to github could be of benefit. > First thing that comes to mind is this wiki

Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in 2016

2016-01-04 Thread Alex Gaynor
My git clone is 350MB (after a make clean), a fresh hg clone is 650MB. Alex On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Georg Brandl wrote: > On 01/01/2016 08:24 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > If you want to read the reasons I chose GitHub over GitLab, > > see >

Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in 2016

2016-01-04 Thread Trent Nelson
Hey Brett, all, I’m playing a bit of catch-up with e-mail, but it occurred to me some of the work I did getting PyParallel switched over to github could be of benefit. First thing that comes to mind is this wiki page where I tried to capture the steps I used for the conversion and subsequent

Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in2016

2016-01-04 Thread Barry Warsaw
On Jan 04, 2016, at 02:09 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: >I currently often rely on a single Hg clone containing all branches. I do hope that a single repo will contain all the branches, though I wouldn't mind too much if we split Python 2 and 3 into separate repos. git worktree is a nice tool if

Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in2016

2016-01-04 Thread Guido van Rossum
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: > I'm not sure that you'd see much savings. You'd only get deltas that were > never merged to master excluded. Point taken though. > Is the expectation that a Git clone would be significantly larger than an Hg clone of an

Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in 2016

2016-01-04 Thread Alex Gaynor
Probably the easiest thing is to point the linkifier at our own webservice that just does: if hash not in cache: try: requests.head("github.com/hash") except requests.error: try: request.head("hg.python.org/hash") except request.error:

Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in 2016

2016-01-04 Thread R. David Murray
On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 01:26:58 +, "Gregory P. Smith" wrote: > On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 12:34 PM R. David Murray > wrote: > > > to have to do some extra work to make the hash links work in the bug > > tracker, since I don't think there's any a priori way

Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in 2016

2016-01-04 Thread Ezio Melotti
On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 7:38 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 5 January 2016 at 11:33, R. David Murray wrote: >> On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 01:26:58 +, "Gregory P. Smith" >> wrote: >>> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 12:34 PM R. David Murray

Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in 2016

2016-01-04 Thread Serhiy Storchaka
понеділок, 04-січ-2016 09:49:57 Eli Bendersky написано: > I suppose you'll want to use https://github.com/python/cpython, which I'm > currently maintaining as a read-only mirror. Let me know when you want to > take control of that repo - I think since it belongs to the "python" Github > org

Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in2016

2016-01-04 Thread Serhiy Storchaka
понеділок, 04-січ-2016 21:18:39 Brett Cannon написано: > On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 at 13:14 Donald Stufft wrote: > > On Jan 4, 2016, at 4:11 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > It’s pretty easy to migrate the entire history (at least what’s in Hg) > > including all branches

Re: [python-committers] Github accounts

2016-01-04 Thread Andrew MacIntyre
On 4/01/2016 12:38 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: On 03.01.2016 05:19, Guido van Rossum wrote: This hardly seems like a real problem, so let's not worry more about it until someone actually needs help solving this. For Andrew, it would have been a real problem, so IMO it's better to be prepared for

Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in 2016

2016-01-04 Thread Georg Brandl
On 01/01/2016 08:24 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > If you want to read the reasons I chose GitHub over GitLab, > see https://mail.python.org/pipermail/core-workflow/2016-January/000345.html . > If you want to discuss the decision or help with the transition, please > subscribe to the core-workflow

Re: [python-committers] We will be moving to GitHub (hopefully) in 2016

2016-01-04 Thread Brett Cannon
On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 at 09:50 Eli Bendersky wrote: > On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Brett Cannon wrote: > >> If you want to read the reasons I chose GitHub over GitLab, see >> https://mail.python.org/pipermail/core-workflow/2016-January/000345.html . >> If