[SciPy-dev] The future of SciPy and its development infrastructure
Mon Feb 23 14:32:54 CST 2009
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 14:16, David Cournapeau <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 5:06 AM, Robert Kern <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 10:04, Stéfan van der Walt <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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).
The user pastes in the URL of his branch. Bug trackers don't really
"track branches"; they track the status of issues. Some bug trackers,
like that in Trac and Redmine, have some special mark up to make it
easy to refer to a particular revision in their repo browser. Is that
what you are talking about? Remember that with a DVCS, it is
intrinsically difficult to accomplish this; anyone can host their
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless
enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as
though it had an underlying truth."
-- Umberto Eco
More information about the Scipy-dev