On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Lukasz Szybalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Jorge Vargas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 1:19 AM, Gustavo Narea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> On Thursday October 16, 2008 05:31:59 Lukasz Szybalski wrote: >>>> > Certainly because none of the people who mentionned interest in this >>>> > thread wanted to implement a bazaar bazed solution... And because this >>>> > discussion originated from the statement that we could host alberto's >>>> > things (toscawigets & al) and also profit from his already integrated >>>> > architecture based on trac and mercurial. >>>> >>>> I see. >>>> >>>> Actually I just created a project on launchpad and started using >>>> bazaar and it goes pretty well. >>> >>> Yes, I also think it's a good idea, but I think it's not going to happen: >>> http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears-trunk/browse_thread/thread/cc89f66dc8e59d43 >>> -- >> Sorry for not replying to that thread I was going to write a long >> reply but time just passed by and I forgot :( >> > > It would be best if mercurial and bazaar merged together into one project!! > >> The mian reasoning goes this way: >> - what does bazaar provides that mercurial doesn't? > > 1. The ability to version and rename directories is something neither > Git nor Mercurial have.
actually that is a design decision as far as I know the only problem they have is that you can't version empty directories which is useful but not critical. > 2. Bazaar plugin for svn can at the moment be used to commit to, pull > from, merge from, push to and view logs of Subversion branches from > Bazaar. > umm that's a big plus, mercurial's is a bit behind because you can't commit directly. although hgsvnimport is very good. Now I see it as a no-go for tg as we'll be moving everything. > What mercurial provides that bazaar doesn't? > >> - is there trac integration? > > Yes there is a bazaar plugin for trac. > oh I didn't knew about it, is it stable? feature complete? trac-mercurial is almost done only 3 mayor differences http://trac.edgewall.org/wiki/TracMercurial#FeaturesthatTracsvnhasbutnotcurrentlyimplementedforTrachg >> - bazaar != launchpad, most people "love" bazaar when they really love >> launchpad, using launchpad for TG is not a great idea as we have a ton >> of things running that aren't issue tracker + repository, to name a >> flew the docs, the widget browser (a tg1 app), the geo sample (not >> sure if they are running from the same box), the buildbot, so in >> conclusion we have a lot of things, that need to run on TG server so >> in the long run it's better to have everything centralized > > Since you are going with distributed system, this means that the whole > TG project will be even more decentralized then it is now. I suspect > we will have more branches of tg2 each with various patches. So svn > kind of keeps it in one place at the moment. you missed the point, by centralized I was referring to all the official copies on the same machine. instead of having to admin the launchpad stuff and the tg stuff. > >> - TG is actually a big set of projects, and it's going to become more >> not less. Which means that even though they are separate we need to >> keep the flag of "group of projects" as far as i know this isn't >> possible with bazaar. > > Not sure what you mean here. > take a look at www.toscawidgets.org each project is in it's own repo and some have trac instances, but they all belong to toscawidgets. So if you go for example here: you will get all official TW packages http://toscawidgets.org/hg >> - I have been working with the twsite code and it provides auth across >> mercurial/tg/trac and it also provide over-the-web creation of repos >> from authorized users, so it works like our own private launchpad, or >> gibhub, or whatever. > > I'm sure you could setup similar authentication with bazaar. > two things 1- you could, as opposed to it is already done 2- integration isn't that trivial, the current code creates repositories from the webinterface, does bazaar provides a wsgi server?, can I manage it's users from wsgi? >> - there is a tendency of python projects to use mercurial as a dvcs. >> We'll have better integration with them, for example when we need to >> run of pylons tip (like now with tg2) > > Not sure how turbogears2 and pylons branching is done. > there isn't branching they are totally different projects. you normally install TG and pylons. from trunk/tip. but when you are working on both projects it's very annoying to type svn status inside the pylons code, and vice versa. Also some people could take advantage of things like the forest extension. > > Based on the svn plugin for bazaar, if somebody wanted to use bazaar > they could do it with svn server that is in place. They get all the > distributed merging and branching while everybody else gets the svn. > This has been discusses a in the thread, the goal is not to provide easy dvcs for individual developers, you could do that with svk, git, mercurial, bazaar, whatever. The goal is to migrate the main server to distributed. Now I got a question, the only advantage you outlined is the svn integration which we don't need. And all the disadvantages are still in place, the most important one being that we have code running to integrate hg, while there isn't any for bazaar. So I ask again what are the advantages for TG core to be in bazaar? > Lucas > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears Trunk" 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/turbogears-trunk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
