The problem with bitbucket is that its Issues API is too limited and
wouldn't let us move our issue tracker. But, as Anatoly suggested a
while ago, what about creating a mirror in github or bitbucket? We could
let people who prefer those sites work there, ask for a pull request and
on our side we could integrate their changes with the main repos in
googlecode.
Pierre, what do you say?
El 28/02/12 05:10, mangecoeur escribió:
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.
