Brett Cannon wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 15:34, "Martin v. Löwis"
wrote: Second, I think it would be good to explicitly mention the option of deferring this PEP. Based on previous discussion, it sounds like there are a fair number of people who think that there is a DVCS in Python's future, but not now (where "now" means over the next couple of years). Sure, I can add a note somewhere that says if a clear winner doesn't come about the PEP can be revisited to a later date.
I think the request is slightly different: consider that a potential outcome should be "svn for the next five years, then reconsider" - not because none of the DVCS is a clear winner, but because there is too much resistance to DVCSes in general, at the moment.
I already put a note in that no DVCS might be chosen once the PEP is finished. Whether it is because no DVCS is a clear improvement over svn or people just don't like a DVCS seems like a minor thing to worry about to spell out in the PEP.
I suspect the reactions will be more nuanced than that anyway - e.g. my current position is that while I like the idea of a DVCS in principle and agree there are definite gains to be had in switching to one, I don't think the contenders have had enough time to shake out their competing feature sets and relative performance. We don't seem to lose a lot by sticking with SVN at least until after 2.7/3.1 are out the door and then revisiting the DVCS question (this is particularly so given that the current plan is go for a fairly short turnaround on those two releases). As the zen says, now is better than never, but never is often better than *right* now :) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia ---------------------------------------------------------------