[oe] Reconsidering the work flow and how the SCM system fits in

[Paul Sokolovsky]

Hello,

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:48:51 -0500
Mike Westerhof <mwester at dls.net> wrote:

[]

> I think this has gotten to the point where the arguments is for the
> sake of arguing, and little else.  

Maybe, and on git's side, there's surprisingly little variety of
arguments - 1) "it has lightweight branches" (hg has too, as was pointed
out, but as plugin (which is good) of experimental state (with
obvious entailments)); 2) "I use git, and it works well for me" - it's
hard to respond without calling CVS ghost; 3) "Don't make people learn
more stuff" - and nobody appears to care about people who *don't* know
git - there're still more such potential OE users - is it fair to force
them to learn its quirks, or leave out people who don't want to learn
quirks?

> I'm surprised that it hasn't been
> mentioned that "hg" has the advantage that its name is only two
> characters, a 33% savings in overhead compared to most other scm
> tools we've discussed.

Actually, there's almost noone argues for hg too insistently. Mostly,
there're calls to think better about git.

> So, who makes this decision, and what's the timeframe?

Apparently, core team? Original proposal named end of month?

> 
> Mike  (mwester)
> 
> Oh - btw, lightweight branching implies working, reliable tools to
> identify diffs and merge them, that's the part that really needs to
> be considered rather than how easy it is to just create a branch.

Aha, good. But not only that. We really should think are lightweight
branches so useful for OE, and do they really fit well into *our*
*current* infrastructure.

[]

-- 
Best regards,
 Paul                          mailto:pmiscml at gmail.com