On Wednesday 06 June 2007 17:34:34 Jeffrey C. Ollie wrote: > > Plus, to be honest, it completely avoids the whole "which damn system do > > we use." And I like focusing on the end user features instead of > > getting stuck in VCS dicussion hell. We're not going to get everyone > > else to agree or even use the same system. So let's build something > > that supports both. > > I think that's a great idea... Even the best tools won't convert > repositories perfectly. And using the same SCM as the upstream makes it > a lot easier to communicate changes with the upstream developers. I do > think that we need to limit the choice of SCM to ones that support a > distributed style of operation and to which Koji has been taught to > build from (I think that Git and Mercurial stand out as obvious first > targets). I don't like the thought of having multiple SCMs for our package SCM. Trying to describe which one new packagers should use is going to be a losing operation. No matter what we use, it should be fairly transparent to new users. They shouldn't have to read a 50 page manual to figure out how to get their new package imported, and built, and later make updates to it and build again. At the same time, what we choose should have the capability of doing the nifty-cool things our power users would like to do. I _really_ don't want to have to present new packagers a choice of Froo and Brob. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora
Attachment:
pgpxOOwm7BBkP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
