On 28/10/2010 20:15, Noah Gift wrote:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 6:34 AM, Michael Foord
mailto:fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk>> wrote:
On 28/10/2010 03:53, Steve Dower wrote:
I'll add in a vote for Mercurial (voting always seems to be how to
decide on VCS), though I still believ
On 29/10/2010 01:32, Jeff Hardy wrote:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Vernon Cole wrote:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Michael Foord
wrote:
On 28/10/2010 03:53, Steve Dower wrote:
Is the plan after 2.7 to start doing 3? That seems like a good
opportunity to "start fresh" in a new reposi
On 29/10/2010 19:46, Steve Dower wrote:
Are IronPython and the DLR so closely coupled that you *need* the
source for both to work on it? Or can you simply develop/test
IronPython using the DLR in the GAC?
In general (I believe) the DLR is an integral part of both the
IronPython and the IronRub
Are IronPython and the DLR so closely coupled that you *need* the
source for both to work on it? Or can you simply develop/test
IronPython using the DLR in the GAC?
I'd rather have the standard library as a 'default' part of the
IronPython checkout than the DLR, primarily because a binary distro o
I've used both hg+bitbucket and git+github. In my experience, there is very
little difference between hg and git in terms of workflow. I found both to
be great and the tools are pretty mature across all platforms. I do think
GitHub is rapidly becoming a killer application for open source project
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Jeff Hardy wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Miguel de Icaza
> wrote:
> > Moving to Git seems like a no brainer to me: we only have to move
> IronPython
> > there. If we were to pick another of the open source source code
> > management systems we woul
On 29.10.2010 09:36, Jeff Hardy wrote:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
Moving to Git seems like a no brainer to me: we only have to move IronPython
there. If we were to pick another of the open source source code
management systems we would be moving both Ruby and Pyth
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> Moving to Git seems like a no brainer to me: we only have to move IronPython
> there. If we were to pick another of the open source source code
> management systems we would be moving both Ruby and Python away.
Where I'm torn is that Iro
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Tony Meyer wrote:
> I think this is the type of decision that the "Coordinators" should
> make themselves based on their own experience/preferences. There's
> never going to be a consensus on which VCS is the best/most
> appropriate choice, and going with majority
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Vernon Cole wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Michael Foord
> wrote:
>> On 28/10/2010 03:53, Steve Dower wrote:
>>> Is the plan after 2.7 to start doing 3? That seems like a good
>>> opportunity to "start fresh" in a new repository and leave the old
>>> s
Hello,
We could, for example, drop the source control from CodePlex and just
> use the IronRuby github repo - it's already set up and we could start
> developing tomorrow
This is my preference.
The GitHub guys have great support for "Organizations", we use that for
Mono, and it has nice adminis
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 6:34 AM, Michael Foord wrote:
> On 28/10/2010 03:53, Steve Dower wrote:
>
>> I'll add in a vote for Mercurial (voting always seems to be how to
>> decide on VCS), though I still believe that SVN works better for a
>> contribution/review/patch workflow.
>>
>
> Distributed ve
> What this is going to look like in the future is an open question, as
> is the timeline. Originally, I wanted to focus on the 2.7 release and
> deal with the source control question later. However, it's been raised
> in a few places, so I think it's better to get some more feedback on
> whether w
+1 for Mecurial and keeping the projects in separate repo's and I also
agree that finishing 2.7 and moving post is a good move.
___
Users mailing list
Users@lists.ironpython.com
http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com
+1 for mercurial and breaking the dlr, ironruby, ironpython, etc. into
separate repositories.
I prefer to use bitbucket but could live with codeplex as the host.
___
Users mailing list
Users@lists.ironpython.com
http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/u
While both hg and git are fine, I'd vote for git so that we are using the
same DVCS as IronRuby, the DLR, and Mono. GitHub also provides excellent
community features and is larger than bitbucket.
Obviously Michael's and Jeff's opinion probably matter most. I'd suggest
just making the call and st
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Michael Foord wrote:
> On 28/10/2010 03:53, Steve Dower wrote:
>
>> I'll add in a vote for Mercurial (voting always seems to be how to
>> decide on VCS), though I still believe that SVN works better for a
>> contribution/review/patch workflow.
>>
>
> Distributed ve
I would prefer Mercurial for the simple reason that git is not very
well supported on Windows and it's ports are not robust enough.
And I would dump pre 2.7 history if it's too much of a hassle to
convert. If someone would really need to check ancient history, it
could just use the old repository.
Dower
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 12:53 AM
To: Discussion of IronPython
Subject: Re: [IronPython] The elephant in the room: source control for
IronPython
I'll add in a vote for Mercurial (voting always seems to be how to decide on
VCS), though I still believe that SVN works better for
On 28/10/2010 03:53, Steve Dower wrote:
I'll add in a vote for Mercurial (voting always seems to be how to
decide on VCS), though I still believe that SVN works better for a
contribution/review/patch workflow.
Distributed version control systems are very good for distributed
development (funny
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 02:27, Jeff Hardy wrote:
>
> My preference is to stick with TFS/SVN for the time being, get 2.7 out
> the door (manually syncing up the DLR sources with IronRuby in the
> meantime), and then look at converting to Mercurial. My second choice
> would be to work out of IronRu
Hi,
I vote for staying wiht the current setup until final 2.7 release. I do
not have any experiences wiht DVCS so I don't know whether Mercurial is
better than git or vice versa. I use SVN so being on CodePlex which has
SVN access is fine for me.
There has been a discussion in IronRuby mailin
I'll add in a vote for Mercurial (voting always seems to be how to
decide on VCS), though I still believe that SVN works better for a
contribution/review/patch workflow.
Is the plan after 2.7 to start doing 3? That seems like a good
opportunity to "start fresh" in a new repository and leave the ol
Currently, IronPython is hosted in a TFS repository on CodePlex
(http://ironpython.codeplex.com/), which was a copy of MS's internal
TFS repository. CodePlex also provides Subversion access, which makes
it much more bearable. CodePlex also hosts our issue tracking and wiki
pages, which probably won
24 matches
Mail list logo
