Just a comment to your blog about VCS packaging in Fedora

[Toshio Kuratomi]

Matej Cepl wrote:
> Take a look at the bottom of
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/VersionControl/ArchitectureDraft -- it has been last updated on 2006-07-23. That's ancient history in the fast flowing Fedora world. In the last year or so I have never ever heard anybody mention other DVCS than git. Aside from bzr coming from THEM :-), there is such overwhelming majority of git users over anybody else, that nothing else than git is just not an option for distributed VCS.
> 
> There are periodically flamewars about switching our packaging to DVCS
> (hell, I would be glad if we use at least CVS correctly), but usually
> there are good reasons why it is rejected. See for example
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/68551/ and
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/56870/ or
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/48106/ for
> examples of such flamewars. However, people are still working around
> this (and yes, I know personally about many many people inside of Red
> Hat who use git-cvsimport for their own packages) -- see
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/71048
> 
Uhm.... Matej, please don't speak for the rest of us.  The main reason 
that we haven't switched to a DVCS is that none of the people who 
implements things for infrastructure wants to step on the toes of people 
  who believe that a different DVCS is the way to go.  Otherwise I'd 
have long since switched us over to bzr :-)

-Toshio

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/vcs-pkg-discuss/attachments/20080221/f11a4023/attachment.pgp