Introduction to Ubuntu Distributed Development

Scott James Remnant scott at ubuntu.com
Thu Dec 17 16:40:19 UTC 2009


On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 10:55 -0500, Adrian Perez wrote:

> I think Git is better suited than Bzr for the job, and I don't make to
> make it personal. 
> 
If you think Git is better suited, please demonstrate it by building up
an equivalent infrastructure that has been built up around bzr, so fair
side-by-side comparisons can be performed.

> It's true that there's an infrastructure set up, but I think the idea of
> voting is letting the community decide for itself, and don't impose us a
> tool which might not be the preferred choice for most of our developers.
> 
Right now, that vote would be:

 ( ) continue using the existing apt-get source infrastructure, and
     contribute by sending debdiffs around; merge from Debian by hand,
     etc.

 ( ) use the new bzr infrastructure, contribute directly to revision
     control branches, merge using native merge support

Because there is no Git or Mercurial infrastructure.


Ubuntu is, first and foremost, work driven.  Those who actually do the
work win; taking a decision between something that works, and something
that does not exist, is nonsense.  If we have two competing things that
work (or two things in development that compete), we have a Technical
Board to arbitrate such matters; they may likely ask for opinions on the
matter.

Scott
-- 
Scott James Remnant
scott at ubuntu.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/attachments/20091217/afe22b04/attachment.pgp>


More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list