How about bitbucket then? I think the question is not so much about the DVCS itself, but about the website and community that are available. Google code just isn't as good as github/bitbucket because of its poor social and sharing features - the other two make it very easy for people to fork and play with the code, making it easier for new users to become contributors. So a move to github or bitbucket wouldn't be about code admin procedure/convention - instead its about making it easier to broaden the spyderlib community and encourage more contributions.
-Jon On Feb 21, 10:16 am, Pierre Raybaut <[email protected]> wrote: > The main advantage of Mercurial is its simplicity. > As written in the hgbook: "In most instances, isolating branches in > repositories is the right approach. Its simplicity makes it easy to > understand; and so it's hard to make mistakes. There's a one-to-one > relationship between branches you're working in and directories on > your system. This lets you use normal (non-Mercurial-aware) tools to > work on files within a branch/repository." > > This being said, if everyone is ok with working with named branches... why > not? > > -Pierre > > 2012/2/16, Steve <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > > > Is there any chance we can keep all the branches in a single repo > > instead of splitting into multiple repos? > > > On Feb 16, 1:01 am, anatoly techtonik <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 2012/1/21 Carlos Córdoba <[email protected]> > > >> > 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. > > >> So the major argument for GitHub move are code reviews. I took a look and > >> must say I am disappointed. For > >> example:https://github.com/PySide/PySide/pull/110Itis a nice feature to > >> be able > >> to comment unified diff, but in most cases it is useless. Such reviews are > >> more effectively done in mailing lists, like Mercurial guys do. No fancy > >> icons, but it works. > > >> The major problem is with commenting unified diffs that most of the time 3 > >> lines of context is not enough. Sometimes I comment on the line that's > >> outside the context if there is no time to figure how some relevant piece > >> of code > >> works.http://code.google.com/p/spyderlib/source/diff?spec=svn545b7ba70fbdd0... > >> (yes, > >> the url is long). I often grep the same file to see references to the code > >> in question or to refresh memories about some code. Quite often I have to > >> checkout and grep the whole project, and given Spyder complexity it will > >> be > >> done most of the time. > > >> So, my conclusion that GitHub reviews are mostly useless even though the > >> interface is more accessible. But as I said - nothing stop us from > >> maintaining a mirror on GitHub - here is a even plugin that can help > >> -http://pypi.python.org/pypi/hg-github/-it is for BitBucker, and I can't > >> see why it can't be adopted for Google Code. > >> -- > >> anatoly t. > > > -- > > 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. -- 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.
