jkeating at redhat.com
Mon Jul 2 18:22:15 UTC 2007
On Monday 02 July 2007 14:16:49 Axel Thimm wrote:
> In the trac camp there's love for mercurial but not for git, don't ask
> me why. Also when 0.10 hit the streets mercurial support for it was
> working and managable, while git was in "experimental planning stage".
> But don't rust me, just look at the metrics, the changelog of the
> mercurial plugin at trac goes until 20070628, e.g. a couple of days
> ago, while the gitplugin's last date is 20061111 (8 months) and OLPC's
> git efforts go until 20060822 (10 months).
> So, it's actually quite far from calling the difference in support
> between mercurial and git "marginal", perhaps it's more like existing
> and not. ;)
From an end user's perspective neither one is complete. Both often throw up
tracebacks on 'unimplimented' stuff. Admittedly HG this is getting fixed,
All it really takes is somebody who cares about git and trac to carry on the
efforts. OLPC's efforts were more to embed gitweb into Trac instead of using
Trac's browser. While neat, not what we want. But I'd rather not let what
Trac does or does not currently support or fully support or more / less
support dictate what SCM we choose to use in Fedora Infrastructure group.
Release Engineer: Fedora
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20070702/b32afa23/attachment.bin
More information about the infrastructure