On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 01:04:07PM -0800, MenTaLguY wrote:
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 11:58:31 -0800, Bryce Harrington <bryce@...961...> wrote:
Longer term, probably following the 0.46 release, it sounds like there's strong support for moving to a distributed version control system (probably either git or bzr). These systems greatly reduce the need for something like a patch tracker, since cloning, branching, and merging are very easy.
The main role of the patch tracker is really to provide assignable work items to make sure that patches really get reviewed/merged by someone; so long as we still have an "authoritative tree", I don't see that need going away with the introduction of a DSCM -- actual patches may simply get replaced by serialized changesets.
I think this aspect is suitably covered now, if you do an advanced search and tick "Show bugs with patches" and milestone "Inkscape 0.46":
https://bugs.launchpad.net/inkscape/+bugs?field.milestone%3Alist=946&fie...
Incidentally, as far as DSCMs go, I'd personally recommend either git or mercurial. git is more robust (I would prefer to keep our core history in git format) and has better analysis tools (which I've come to rely on heavily), but mercurial is much less user-hostile.
Have you had a chance to play with bazaar much? I'm curious why you would prefer git or mercurial over it since it sounds like it has a better balance of robustness and lack of user-hostility. I don't have strong feelings either way, but the people I've talked with that have used both git and bzr seem to strongly prefer bzr (mainly on the basis of the interface, but they seem to appreciate other little features of it).
Bryce