Request for monotone
mdehaan at redhat.com
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
>> 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.
> 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