Re: hg conversion notes and summary

[Jonathan Larmour <jifl@jifvik.org>]

Alex Schuilenburg wrote:
> Jonathan Larmour wrote on 2009-10-16 05:21:
> 
>>Alex Schuilenburg wrote:
>>I also see an hgext dir with the same date, including bugzilla.py,
>>notify.py.
>>
>>If we do make a decision to move to hg, we'll need to know if there
>>would be any problems using that version, and so whether I'd need to
>>agitate towards moving sourceware to something more recent (which
>>isn't straightforward as other projects use hg too).
> 
> It would be worthwhile upgrading IMHO to pick up the current features
> and fixes - the only requirement is python 2.4 or above.

Given it's used by other projects, I'd have to give a good reason for 
potential disruption. If there is something concrete I could mention (bug 
X will make it hard, or it is missing important feature Y) that would be 
useful.

> There are no problems I know of upgrading - I upgraded from 1.0.2 to
> 1.3.1 midway through our internal CVS to hg conversion and in fact
> benefited from one of the bugfixes (hg reports a file as modified when
> it is not - simple to recover, but annoying when you do a major merge),
> but it does not matter really what sourceware is running if it is only
> handling push/pull since I would assume any merge work would be done
> offsite on sombody's own machine and their own updated version of hg. 

Shell accounts on sourceware are usually highly restricted, so yes.

> That after all is what DRCS is all about ;-)  The only local sourceware
> issues may be bugzilla, notify or the hgwebdir.cgi which have seen
> fairly useful improvements since 1.0 (including git plugin and git views
> so those got fans still get the same look and feel, should you be so
> inclined).

Would the bugzilla plugin need to live on sourceware or on the bugzilla 
machine?

You can defer answering till after a decision's been made :-)

Jifl
-- 
--["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine