<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 6:34 AM, Michael Foord <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:fuzzyman@voidspace.org.uk">fuzzyman@voidspace.org.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On 28/10/2010 03:53, Steve Dower wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I'll add in a vote for Mercurial (voting always seems to be how to<br>
decide on VCS), though I still believe that SVN works better for a<br>
contribution/review/patch workflow.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Distributed version control systems are very good for distributed development (funny that). Whilst I'm not proposing we use bzr (I would *very* much like us to use mercurial though), our workflow at Canonical with bzr and launchpad is great. You develop in a branch (branching is very easy with dcvs') and push to launchpad. On requesting a merge review you get a great web interface with viewable diff and when the merge is approved you merge back onto trunk. (Branching and merging are substantially easier with hg / bzr / git than with svn.)<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>(From the peanut gallery). One potential benefit to having the project live at Canonical is that Michael works there, and Canonical may be interested in helping officially support it. Stranger things have happened..... </div>
</div>