[Python-Dev] I would like an svn account

[Brett Cannon]

On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 14:47, "Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote:
>>> As a consequence, I would always request that whatever VCS Python
>>> uses: the version that is in the current Debian's "stable" distribution
>>> must be sufficient to use the VCS, and must in particular be sufficient
>>> on the server side.
>>>
>>
>> Even if someone like me or Barry volunteers to maintain the
>> installation of the DVCS software? I would be willing to do this
>> if/when the replacement for svn is chosen.
>
> Now we need to separate between server side and client side; for
> each side, there should be a minimum required version (which might
> be different).
>
> If Debian stable doesn't include the minimum required client version,
> I will be opposed to switching to the DVCS.
>

OK.

> If it doesn't include the minimum required server version, I could
> live with somebody maintaining a manual installation (which then
> hopefully can be replaced with an official package on the next upgrade).
>

That's what I am talking about.

>> This is why depending wholly on Debian for everything can be annoying.
>> I understand the policy and support it overall, but in the case of
>> something like a DVCS that doesn't have ridiculous dependencies like
>> svn and someone explicitly taking the lead on the specific
>> installation it would seem like an exception could potentially be
>> made.
>
> It's always possible to make exceptions. It's not just about the VCS;
> there have been requests to replace Apache, NTP, Zope, Postgres,
> MoinMoin, and a few other packages. There have been many problems
> on upgrade for the cases where we gave in: shared libraries were
> missing after the upgrade (for Zope), the software wasn't available
> anymore after the upgrade (in case of manually-install Python pacakges),
> and so on. Very few people have actually helped in fixing these
> problems (applause to AMK for being very helpful with the most recent
> incidents).
>

Right, which is why I wouldn't want to do this unless the installation
was owned by someone who was definitely going to be around for a LONG
time.

> I'd rather have the users annoyed than finding out that the custom
> setup opened an entrance for hackers.
>

Right. Whomever stepped forward to maintain a custom install would
need to really stay on top of things.

-Brett