[Python-Dev] Mercurial Schedule

[Georg Brandl]

Am 18.11.2010 18:32, schrieb "Martin v. Löwis":
>>> Alternatively, b1 should be postponed until after the Mercurial
>>> migration is done.
>> 
>> I think this "new feature" is not so shocking that it can be used as
>> an argument to hold up the migration. If you have another reason to
>> stop the migration please say so; personally I can't wait for it to
>> happen.
> 
> I can't point out any other specific concern, just a general feeling
> that *when* the migration happens, it will be rushed, and we will have
> to deal for a long time with the aftermath. For example, I expect that
> it will take me several days until I get the Windows build process to
> work correctly, and, if the migration gets as rushed as it appears to,
> that the migration will happen without everything being worked out
> beforehand.
> 
> Therefore, I'm concerned that I will have to work out all the details
> on my own, just so that I can produce the b2 binaries (says); this is
> not something I look forward to.

How much does the binary build process really depend on version control?
I.e., what would be stopping you from making a binary from an archive made
with e.g. "svn export"?  (I'm really asking because I don't know.)

Concerning the SVN external/ subdir, that is quite orthogonal to the
main development repo, and doesn't need to be migrated in lockstep (if it is
migrated to Mercurial at all in its current shape.

> I'm not asking that the migration be stopped - I'm asking that it be
> accelerated, so that there is plenty of time to identify all the
> problems. But I'm also not willing to put time into it.

I think we have anticipated what we could.  Of course there will still be
problems, but I think not of the sort that causes big disruptions
everywhere, preventing our developers from committing or breaking the
issue tracker, etc.

> Failing the acceleration, I ask that appropriate consequences for
> the 3.2 release are drawn: either it is postponed, or done using
> Subversion until the final release (I think something can be worked
> out then to get the 3.2.1 release from Mercurial - with only slight
> incompatibilities).
> 
> In general, I'm *also* concerned about the lack of volunteers that
> are interested in working on the infrastructure. I wish some of the
> people who stated that they can't wait for the migration to happen
> would work on solving some of the remaining problems.

Well, put some butter to the fish: how many volunteers would you deem
sufficient, and which specific tasks are uncared for in the infrastructure?
I can only speak for myself, but I am prepared to put in my time.

Georg