dist-hg proof-of-concept ready for use

[Ed Hill]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 11:23:54 +0800 David Woodhouse
<dwmw2 at infradead.org> wrote:
> 
> So... if we discount the religious issue of the language it's written
> in, why _would_ we consider using Hg instead of git?
> 
> I'd be much happier with git. The recent proliferation of version
> control systems isn't a good thing -- I strongly believe that in
> general we should stick with CVS where it's good (or entrenched)
> enough, and use git for for the rest.

+1 

Can someone please explain what parts of CVS are so horribly broken that
Fedora must abandon it right now?  Even with all the (very well known)
CVS warts and shortcomings I still don't see why Fedora needs to be in
a hurry to move away from it.

It's not as if people do a lot of complicated merging, branching, file
renaming, and experimental development work within the Fedora SCM
system.  For the most part, they don't.  People keep spec files, some
patches, and an occasional README or similar document.  These files 
tend to change slowly and simply.

And shouldn't the contentious nature of the proposed CVS replacements 
be seen as a warning -- that perhaps things haven't really sorted
themselves out in the SCM arena and it would be smart to wait for 
an FC8 or FC9 time-frame?

Ed

-- 
Edward H. Hill III, PhD  |  ed at eh3.com  |  http://eh3.com/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20061113/1281a1e8/attachment.sig>