On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 19:56:23 +0530 Rahul Sundaram <sundaram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The question as I now see it is whether the Fedora Project Board > cares about the use cases described and wants to support that. > Previous discussions about moving to distributed SCM's were focused > on the advantages (or lack of that) to package maintainers. Atleast > some derivative distributions find it useful and moving to a > distributed SCM would avoid the need to duplicate package CVS under > git. > > Enabling spins was a board decision. Is supporting the needs of > derivative distributions a equivalent priority? I think the answer > to that should come from the Fedora Project Board. The problem is that we don't want these downstreams to become dependent on a copy of the content, which may or may not be valid over time, or may or may not be continued over time. If it's an experiment, that's what RFRs (Request for Resource) are for, I've used an RFR in the past to do a short term experiment with a direct conversion of dist-cvs to hg, and to git. However they had expected end times and the resources were recycled. I don't think anybody disagrees that we should move to another SCM that allows for better downstream interaction. However just a direct copy of our workflow to git doesn't help. Nobody wants to work on the hard problem, thus nothing gets done, no matter /who/ wants it. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
