On Jul 1, 2011, at 1:08 PM, chris wrote:
doing continuous development based on tools like
svn and trac is really painful and it's really difficult to motivate
yourself to work on a once rejected ticket
Can you be more specific, please? What's painful?
I always found it especially irritating to come back to a patch later. If I don't already have a patched checkout of Twisted, I need to figure out what revision I was at before (or to actually be safe, make a HEAD checkout), then reapply my patch, hoping it is still valid.
With a fork I can check it out any time, rebase to the current master (or branch I'm working on), having my changes reapplied for me. When I have made more changes I just push it up. No changes to tickets or switching keywords or watching Trac reject my patch file 10 times then clearing all my cookies or whatever.
I've always admired Twisted's standards and process; I think they have made it possible for such a huge project to maintain working order for so long. The tools could use an upgrade, though.
Procedurally, it's almost the same number of clicks (except for the unfortunate need to type the word 'review') to do this on Github or Launchpad. What part of the process is painful? If you're not a committer, we're not going to let you run code on our buildbots either way without a cursory review (that's just a recipe for automated attacks) so it's not like you get past that step for free, either.
Plus, you can use the DVCS of your choice to actually author the patch.