[fab] Fedora Project and Hosting

[seth vidal]

On Fri, 2006-10-20 at 10:30 -0400, Christopher Blizzard wrote:
> seth vidal wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-10-20 at 10:23 -0400, Christopher Blizzard wrote:
> > 
> >> I don't think it's as tough as that.  For example, we should really have 
> >> a git repo that fedora developers (including red hat folks!) can use. 
> >> If nothing else, being able to interact with the kernel, x.org and a 
> >> host of other projects is enough reason alone to just host that one thing.
> >>
> >> And I think that we don't have to worry about the whole big picture 
> >> here.  We're not trying to compete with sourceforge, nor should we try. 
> >>   But we should be facilitating individuals to get shit done.  And a 
> >> variety of SCMs do just that.
> >>
> > 
> > It also makes it so people have to chase down a bunch of different scm
> > tools just to be able to work on multiple projects in fedora.
> > 
> > That's sad-face-making, too.
> > 
> > Increasing complexity raises barriers to entry just as much as limiting
> > the complexity overly-much does.
> > 
> > There's a happy medium in there. One of every one isn't it.
> 
> Agreed completely.  Once again, in concrete terms:
> 
> o Do you think that supporting git is important?
> o How about TLA? (or whatever it's called these days)
> o monotone?
> 
> Just three examples of SCMs that are in use today.  What would you say 
> to each of those?
> 

I just posted the list I think will let people cover the range of scm's
fairly well.

git
cvs
hg

tla/monotone/etc doesn't seem to have the groundswell behind it
svn isn't overtly interesting to me beyond a couple of features as
compared to cvs

-sv