Hi Todd,
El 08/01/12 05:40, todd rme escribió:
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Jed Ludlow<[email protected]> wrote:
A minor modification in the workflow would I think produce the
result we are looking for without all the overhead of switching hosting and
all the associated loss of history that would occur.
Just to be clear, there is no reason there should be any loss of
history. There are tools to export mercurial repositories to git with
the full history maintained. See fast-export:
http://repo.or.cz/w/fast-export.git This tool is even recommened by
googlecode for converting googlecode mercural repos to googlecode git
repos.
I didn't want to say that we were at risk to loose *commits* in the
conversion. What we would loose are all *references to previous commits*
which we have written in several commit messages. Surely git uses a
different algorithm to create commit id's and that's why we would have
this problem.
But the good news is that we have very few commits which reference other
commits (around 40), so we wouldn't loose too much info. And of course
it would be better the sooner we do the switch.
It is also possible to use googlecode with git, but I don't know how
that compares to github.
The main benefit in the move to github would be the possibility to use
its pull request system to review the work of other developers and also
users who have found a simple fix. It's not because git is better than
mercurial.
-Todd
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"spyder" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/spyderlib?hl=en.
