[Kolab-devel] Poll: Kolab server switching to Mercurial SCM?

[Gunnar Wrobel]

Quoting Thomas Arendsen Hein <thomas at intevation.de>:

> Hi!
>
> I think everyone agrees that we want to get away from CVS, primary
> reasons for this is to be able to move files around without breaking
> their history and to get a single revision number to identify
> builds, which is important e.g. for automated builds.
>
> Although we will continue to use a central public repository, some
> of the developers (including Sascha and me) want the ability to do
> refactoring or bigger changes without interrupting the work of
> others or just do some local modifications for testing or for
> customers and still be able to commit often to save their progress
> and to split their work in smaller parts which can be reviewed more
> easily. Therefore (and for some other reasons) the next SCM will not
> be Subversion, but a distributed SCM.

Yes, yes, yes, YES!

>
> Main contenders for this are Mercurial (hg) and git, but for the
> following reasons we see Mercurial as the better choice for the
> development of Kolab Server:
>
> - Intevation has expert knowledge and operating experience in
>   Mercurial while only user experience in git.
> - The web interface offers simple and short URLs for downloading
>   single files or patches, this is already used with the viewcvs
>   interface for user documentation and for patches which have to be
>   applied to e.g. Cyrus imapd to add features required by the
>   server.
> - Usage of Mercurial is easier to learn for people already knowing
>   CVS or Subversion, because the UI is quite similar, see e.g.
>   http://mercurial.selenic.com/quickstart/ or
>   http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/CvsCommands
>
> So I would like to ask for short feedback (as I do not want to spend
> too much time on discussion if everyone already is happy enough with
> this) about what you think about switching to Mercurial.
>
> Please choose one of:
> +1 (I want it)

+1 because of all of the three reasons you mentioned are sound.

If I had to make the decision I would still go for git as I have the  
impression that this is currently developing into the mainstream  
successor following cvs / svn. The whole PHP world seems to have move  
into github during the last two month :)

But as long as it is distributed I don't really care which tool we  
actually use. It is just a tool after all and they are all pretty much  
alike.

Cheers,

Gunnar

>  0 (I can live with it)
> -1 (I do not agree, please add a short rationale)
>
> Deadline for this poll is next Thursday, March 4th, 12:00 UTC.
>
> If we get a negative result, we will start a more in-depth
> discussion.
>
> Regards,
> Thomas Arendsen Hein
>
> --
> thomas at intevation.de - http://intevation.de/~thomas/ - OpenPGP key:  
> 0x5816791A
> Intevation GmbH, Neuer Graben 17, 49074 Osnabrueck - AG Osnabrueck,  
> HR B 18998
> Geschaeftsfuehrer: Frank Koormann, Bernhard Reiter, Dr. Jan-Oliver Wagner
>



-- 
______ http://kdab.com _______________ http://kolab-konsortium.com _

p at rdus Kolab work is funded in part by KDAB and the Kolab Konsortium

____ http://www.pardus.de _________________ http://gunnarwrobel.de _
E-mail : p at rdus.de                                 Dr. Gunnar Wrobel
Tel.   : +49 700 6245 0000                          Bundesstrasse 29
Fax    : +49 721 1513 52322                          D-20146 Hamburg
--------------------------------------------------------------------
    >> Mail at ease - Rent a kolab groupware server at p at rdus <<
--------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digitale PGP-Unterschrift
URL: <http://lists.kolab.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100225/8e53fb91/attachment.sig>