[ANN] pidgin git import v5

[Richard Laager]

On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 14:28 +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> Since you skipped the relevant part, I'm just going to state it for
> the record: the Pidgin project does *not* plan to have a publicly
> available analysis for the rationale to moving to mercurial like other
> projects have[1][2][3][4].

This has been discussed publicly on the mailing list.

I think this thread has most to all of the points raised:
http://pidgin.im/pipermail/devel/2011-January/010062.html

Summary:

We don't see huge differences between the two and would like to provide
both repositories to accommodate the preferences of patch submitters.

Given that, there's really only a question of which one is the
"official" trunk. That decision affects "developers" (upstream
committers) only, and most prefer Mercurial for some combination of A)
it's what they're used to, B) they like its history model (especially
branching) better, and/or C) they like the human interface with the tool
better.

Also (and this is a small advantage), both Adium and Instantbird use
Mercurial. Adium, at least, has a copy of libpurple in their tree, so
using the same repository format gives them the option to either rebase
against our repository or, more likely, easily use it as a subrepo (what
git calls a submodule). To be fair, if the "official" repository was
git, they could use the hg mirror. But there is overlap in the sets of
committers (at least Evan), so using the same format means that subset
could immediately commit upstream.

In closing, again, the intention is to have a git mirror, so anyone who
wants to use git can do so without needing to care that official commits
go into Mercurial first.

-- 
Richard
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://pidgin.im/pipermail/devel/attachments/20120523/eaafd042/attachment.sig>