[Distutils] the virtualenv-distribute mess

[Ben Finney]

Chris Withers <chris at simplistix.co.uk> writes:

> Why are there effectively 3 forks on virtualenv now, just to get it to
> use distribute? Is it really so hard to work with Ian Bicking to be
> the real virtualenv using distribute instead of setuptools, especially
> in the way of the bdfl pronouncement?

You do realise that, because those branches share ancestry with Ian's
branch, they can be merged back in? That, by being able to put a branch
online that the VCS tool knows how to merge, it's much *easier* to
collaborate than with centralised VCS?

That, without any explicit co-ordination between the parties, Ian
Bicking can take any of those branches and merge whatever changes he
finds appropriate back into his own branch, and vice versa?

This is the strength of distributed VCS like Bazaar, Git, and Mercurial:
you're seeing *more* collaboration because there is less administrative
barrier required to put a branch online and still have it be
VCS-compatible with the original.

-- 
 \        “It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.” |
  `\                                                       —David Hume |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney