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 old stuff where it is, only carrying over the barest minimum. I can't see any movement before 2.7 as being worthwhile. I'd like to see the DLR separated, but doing so does make cross-versioning more difficult. However, following a log that has three separate projects (assuming DLR, IronPy and IronRuby) is messy. Patching potentially gets a lot harder as well. I do intend to contribute, as soon as I stop breaking my own project :) How up to date is the CodePlex issue tracker? On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 18:27, Jeff Hardy <jdha...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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't change any time soon. > > IronRuby's source code is hosted on github > (http://github.com/ironruby/ironruby). It's also a copy of MS's > internal TFS repository, but in git. > > The interesting part is that IronRuby, IronPython, and the DLR are > hosted in the *same* repository, since they evolved together. Thus, > both the IronPython CodePlex repo and the IronRuby github repo are > basically the same. > </history-lesson> > > 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 we should switch source control methods (and if so, to what?) > or just stay on TFS/SVN for the time being. Also up for consideration > is whether you consider being part of the same repo as IronRuby is > valuable, or whether IronPython should split out on its own. > > 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 (although it would probably be renamed > 'ironlanguages' or something like that). It's also probably the only > option if IronPython and IronRuby are to share a repo, as, so far as I > know, the IronRuby guys have no plans on leaving github, which makes > sense for them - git is the de facto choice in the Ruby community. > > In Python, however, it's not so clear-cut - Python itself will be > moving to Mercurial soon, and there are plans afoot to eventually put > the Python stdlib in a separate repo from Python itself, which will > likely also be a Mercurial repository. Thus there are advantages > (subrepos, in particular) to being on the same DVCS. On top of that, > both Michael Foord and I strongly dislike git - I prefer Mercurial, > and I imagine the coffee at Canonical will have Michael singing the > praises of bzr fairly soon :). Finally, CodePlex supports Mercurial, > and thus everything could remain there if we so wish. > > However, converting the repo to Mercurial could be a difficult task - > the fate of the 1.1, 2.0, and 2.6 branches would have to be decided > (include them in the repo, or not? Their structure is radically > different from the Main branch). There are folders that could very > well be stripped (WiX, Ruby, and *3* CPython installations, not to > mention IronRuby) to save space, and with a DVCS once they're in the > history everyone has to pay that cost in disk space, forever, even if > we later remove them. The fate of the DLR would need to be decided - > do we keep a local copy, pull from IronRuby's copy, or make it a third > repo altogether? > > 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 IronRuby's git repository, get 2.7 released, > and then look at converting to Mercurial. Anything that doesn't > eventually involve Mercurial is a lot further down my list :). > > I would like to see the DLR become a separate project, of which > IronRuby and IronPython are just clients, along with IronJS, > Clojure-CLR, and any others. I don't think the DLR will change too > drastically, but the MS guys who are more familiar might have other > plans, and Tomas has said he would prefer them to be together for ease > of testing. > > While the coordinators have discussed this already, I think we need > more feedback to get an idea of what we should do, so please share > your thoughts. This has a direct bearing on how you will be > contributing to IronPython. > > - Jeff > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > Users@lists.ironpython.com > http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com > _______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@lists.ironpython.com http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com
