Request for monotone

Michael DeHaan mdehaan at
Thu Dec 13 21:35:43 UTC 2007

John Poelstra wrote:
> Paulo Santos said the following on 12/13/2007 01:15 AM Pacific Time:
>> I tend to agree with stahnma. Currently we already offer the most 
>> common SCMs, and from what i can see no one has really good knowledge 
>> with monotone, which may be a problem regarding some future 
>> troubleshooting/administration/whatever.
>> If we still think that monotone, would be a good addition though, we 
>> could always send some emails and see what would be the acceptance of 
>> it and the number of projects to be created.
>> For now i would say no to monotone, since we don't have the in-house 
>> expertise, and any relevant data on how many projects  would be 
>> actually using it.
>> Paulo
> Can someone put forth a strong argument as to why monotone provides 
> better functionality than the existing 4 choices?  Otherwise I think 
> we have done our due diligence by providing freedom to projects 
> *choose* a  SCM from the supported list which includes most of the 
> currently widely used SCMs.


Doing something to curb rapid-SCM-expansion we're seeing everywhere 
would be welcome IMHO, and might do some good in getting people to 
contribute more on the big 4 (or 5, or 6, etc).  I heard someone comment 
how he needed to understand 6 SCM tools to understand all the upstreams 
his project was using.

I know I'm not helping to maintain any of our existing SCM support, but 
it seems like it would be creating a lot of extra work for 
infrastructure and not many people would use it.    Bigger fish to fry?

Besides, everyone should just be using git :)


More information about the Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list