Brief article on benchmarks of Python repository with leading DVCSen

[Alexander Belchenko]

Paul Moore пишет:
> 2009/2/12 Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org>:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On Feb 11, 2009, at 12:58 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
>>
>>> OK, here's a question. Given the existence of the current "unofficial"
>>> DVCS branches, what benefits are there to non-core committers of the
>>> core moving to a DVCS?
>> Lots, many of which are outlined in PEP 374.
> 
> You may have misunderstood me - at the moment, I hack on Python using
> Mercurial, based on the available hg mirror of Python trunk. The fact
> that the "official" repo is in Subversion doesn't make any difference
> to me - my interaction is by means of hg clone, local work in hg, and
> submission of patches.
> 
> If Python core development switches to a DVCS, what difference would
> that make to me? (Assuming that (a) the hg mirror doesn't disappear,
> and (b) I'm happy with Mercurial and have no wish to change my local
> practices). It's hard to see any, given that I currently ignore the
> fact that the core is in Subversion :-)
> 
>>> If someone confirmed that regardless of which DVCS was chosen, a
>>> maintained, up to date Mercurial mirror of Python would be provided
>>> (and that patch submission processes would remain VCS-neutral) then
>>> I'd stop bothering.
>> To the extent that such mirrors can be run by people outside the small and
>> overworked python.org admin team, I'm all for it.  Maybe this will motivate
>> people to make Tailor rock and then provide that as a service to the Python
>> community.  I seriously doubt the py.org admins will take any of that work
>> on.  Dedicated, long-term volunteers are always welcome and might influence
>> the decision to pull that service in-house.
> 
> To an extent, that's what I'm trying to establish - whether
> svn-as-master makes it easier for some volunteer to maintain a (hg,
> for my particular preference) mirror, as opposed to
> bzr/git/hg-as-master. Clearly, my ideal would be for Antione to
> continue managing the hg mirror, but given that it's based on his
> hgsvn, he may be less inclined to mirror a bzr/git master similarly...
> 
> I guess I've made more than enough of this point now (and it's
> severely off-topic for the Bazaar list by this stage!) so I'll leave
> it at that. I've suggested to the PEP authors that adding a section
> evaluating "ease of maintaining foreign mirrors" would be useful -
> we'll see what comes of that.

Paul, for me it seems like hg is outsider in the field of easy maintaining
foreign mirrors. Consider this:

git has git-svn and fast-export/fast-import
bzr has bzr-svn (and maybe bzr-git soon) and fast-export/fast-import

Both git and bzr is better suitable for 2-ways interactions with foreign systems.

What about hg?