[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Request for monotone



John Poelstra wrote:
Paulo Santos said the following on 12/13/2007 01:15 AM Pacific Time:
I tend to agree with stahnma. Currently we already offer the most common SCMs, and from what i can see no one has really good knowledge with monotone, which may be a problem regarding some future troubleshooting/administration/whatever. If we still think that monotone, would be a good addition though, we could always send some emails and see what would be the acceptance of it and the number of projects to be created.

For now i would say no to monotone, since we don't have the in-house expertise, and any relevant data on how many projects would be actually using it.


Paulo

Can someone put forth a strong argument as to why monotone provides better functionality than the existing 4 choices? Otherwise I think we have done our due diligence by providing freedom to projects *choose* a SCM from the supported list which includes most of the currently widely used SCMs.

+1.

Doing something to curb rapid-SCM-expansion we're seeing everywhere would be welcome IMHO, and might do some good in getting people to contribute more on the big 4 (or 5, or 6, etc). I heard someone comment how he needed to understand 6 SCM tools to understand all the upstreams his project was using.

I know I'm not helping to maintain any of our existing SCM support, but it seems like it would be creating a lot of extra work for infrastructure and not many people would use it. Bigger fish to fry?

Besides, everyone should just be using git :)

--Michael


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]