On Fri, 2006-10-20 at 10:30 -0400, Christopher Blizzard wrote: > seth vidal wrote: > > On Fri, 2006-10-20 at 10:23 -0400, Christopher Blizzard wrote: > > > >> I don't think it's as tough as that. For example, we should really have > >> a git repo that fedora developers (including red hat folks!) can use. > >> If nothing else, being able to interact with the kernel, x.org and a > >> host of other projects is enough reason alone to just host that one thing. > >> > >> And I think that we don't have to worry about the whole big picture > >> here. We're not trying to compete with sourceforge, nor should we try. > >> But we should be facilitating individuals to get shit done. And a > >> variety of SCMs do just that. > >> > > > > It also makes it so people have to chase down a bunch of different scm > > tools just to be able to work on multiple projects in fedora. > > > > That's sad-face-making, too. > > > > Increasing complexity raises barriers to entry just as much as limiting > > the complexity overly-much does. > > > > There's a happy medium in there. One of every one isn't it. > > Agreed completely. Once again, in concrete terms: > > o Do you think that supporting git is important? > o How about TLA? (or whatever it's called these days) > o monotone? > > Just three examples of SCMs that are in use today. What would you say > to each of those? > I just posted the list I think will let people cover the range of scm's fairly well. git cvs hg tla/monotone/etc doesn't seem to have the groundswell behind it svn isn't overtly interesting to me beyond a couple of features as compared to cvs -sv _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
