[Python-Dev] PEP: Collecting information about git

[Nick Coghlan]

On 16 Sep 2015 7:43 am, "Larry Hastings" <larry at hastings.org> wrote:
>
>
> I don't follow.  Because you're an advocate of Python switching to git
and GitHub, we should have a git tutorial committed as a Python Enhancement
Proposal?
>
> I'm not attempting to stir up a conversation about git vs hg.  I only
question the idea that a git tutorial should be a PEP, when it has
literally nothing to do with enhancing Python.  There are countless other
venues through which Oleg could publish this information--a blog, a wiki,
or even a series of postings to this newsgroup. I would encourage him to
withdraw the PEP and publish through one of those.

PEP 481 proposes moving the core workflow to a GitHub backed Phabricator
instance, so I see some utility in having an informational PEP that
collects details on the practical benefits folks see in git over hg. For
cases where the perception is incorrect, we can note that too, and improve
the dev guide accordingly (the Mercurial folks may also find out useful in
improving their tutorials and default settings)

For example, your 3.5.0 release process experiment highlighted some of the
problems with BitBucket's Mercurial pull requests being incorrectly
implemented atop named branches rather than bookmarks:
https://bitbucket.org/site/master/issues/6705/cant-create-pull-request-from-hg-bookmark

This means if folks are following Atlassian's lead and using branches in
Mercurial when bookmarks would be more appropriate, they're going to
encounter problems.

Cheers,
Nick.

>
>
> /arry
>
>
> On 09/15/2015 07:22 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>
>> For one, because *I* have been a (moderate) advocate for switching to
git and GitHub.
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Georg Brandl <g.brandl at gmx.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 09/15/2015 08:02 PM, Oleg Broytman wrote:
>>> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 09:46:55AM -0700, Benjamin Peterson <
benjamin at python.org> wrote:
>>> >> This looks like good information, but why is it a PEP? If anything,
the
>>> >> devguide was probably be more appropriate. But even that's strange
>>> >> considering we don't use git at the moment.
>>> >
>>> >    Exactly because the core team doesn't use git the information
doesn't
>>> > belong to the current revision of Developer's Guide.
>>>
>>> And if it doesn't propose to make the core team use git, why is it a
PEP?
>>>
>>> Georg
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Python-Dev mailing list
>>> Python-Dev at python.org
>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
>>> Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Python-Dev mailing list
>> Python-Dev at python.org
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
>> Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/larry%40hastings.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/ncoghlan%40gmail.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20150916/d5c5e3d4/attachment.html>