Re: [glob2-devel] mercurial switch

[Kai Antweiler]

>>
>> The whole idea of mercurial is distributed development. So if contributors
>> publish their repositories on their own web sites and there is an official
>> maintainer who merges into the official upstream regularly, we can imagine
>> putting everything on www.globulation2.org. I could then provided a backup
>> copy of this rep (and do debian nightly build) and as the system is
>> distributed, branching off it is perfectly ok.
>
>
> This is not very good. It would lead to a lot of old code, and bugs. Its
> eaiser to have one repositry, where everyone commits to and updates. Having
> different repositories on different sites is asking for trouble.

This style Steph described usually almost works well.
The repositories would have names which show that they are not official.
But our project is too small for this concept.

Usually there would be more maintainers.  Each having a control over
some repositories in which the devs can push code.  Then they decide
which code is readdy and worth it to get into the master branch in
the official repository.  Maintainers would have to merge repositories
and rewrite history and coordinate.
So yes, there will be trouble, but also people who take care of it.
Glob2 is too small.


> The big question: is there anyone who want to do this maintainer job?

I would like to, but I don't want to spend the time for it.
Also there is the problem of where devs can put there repositories.
OK, linux devs can use a public git hoster.
Ah, I forgot about sourceforge.  The windows users could set up
mercurial repositories on sourceforge.  Do they allow multiple
repositories for the same project?  Whould this be convenient?
Without maintainer this doesn't matter anyway.


> It will work the same way as CVS does atm (one place, several contirbutors).
> Just a different CMS that handles merging better.

... and has some other nice features.

-- 
Kai Antweiler