[SciPy-dev] The future of SciPy and its development infrastructure
Mon Feb 23 14:16:32 CST 2009
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 5:06 AM, Robert Kern <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 10:04, Stéfan van der Walt <email@example.com> wrote:
>> 1) Distributed revision control system: David Cournapeau and myself have
>> been test driving Git  on SciPy and NumPy for a while. It is fast, well
>> supported, has great branch support, and is simple to use for the average
>> contributor, while allowing powerful patch-carving for the more adventurous.
> While I really like DVCS in general, I don't think there is much
> benefit to switching. The various DVCS-SVN bridges account for most of
> the benefits, I think.
I agree on this - having a "blessed" mirror so that anyone into DVCS
could have a "reference" would be enough for me, at least as long as
there is no good solution for bug tracking (the one advantage of
switching to a DVCS is easier merging/branching, but I am worried
about the workflow if the bug tracker cannot track branches).
>> 2) Ticketing back-end: David is exploring RedMine , and I'd like to take
>> a look at InDefero , but we'll do a careful analysis of trac-git (like
>> FedoraHosted) too.
> You may also want to consider using Roundup for just bug tracking and
> forgoing "integrated" solutions like the above entirely. We don't use
> the Trac wiki for anything we couldn't do on the Moin site.
Ah, I did not know about roundup, it looks really nice: at least from
the feature set, it has everything I miss from trac. THe reason why I
thought about redmine is that it is easy to migrate, and has support
for the things I care the most. I otherwise do not care about the
solution as long as it is scriptable and ideally can be used offline.
Would hosting roundup be an option ?
More information about the Scipy-dev