On Monday 02 July 2007 14:16:49 Axel Thimm wrote: > In the trac camp there's love for mercurial but not for git, don't ask > me why. Also when 0.10 hit the streets mercurial support for it was > working and managable, while git was in "experimental planning stage". > > But don't rust me, just look at the metrics, the changelog of the > mercurial plugin at trac goes until 20070628, e.g. a couple of days > ago, while the gitplugin's last date is 20061111 (8 months) and OLPC's > git efforts go until 20060822 (10 months). > > So, it's actually quite far from calling the difference in support > between mercurial and git "marginal", perhaps it's more like existing > and not. ;) From an end user's perspective neither one is complete. Both often throw up tracebacks on 'unimplimented' stuff. Admittedly HG this is getting fixed, but... All it really takes is somebody who cares about git and trac to carry on the efforts. OLPC's efforts were more to embed gitweb into Trac instead of using Trac's browser. While neat, not what we want. But I'd rather not let what Trac does or does not currently support or fully support or more / less support dictate what SCM we choose to use in Fedora Infrastructure group. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora
Attachment:
pgpybrKah9Syk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
