Add mercurial to development group?

[Neal Becker]

I noticed this post:

http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=244442

What would be the process to add mercurial to development group?

How can I see what packages are in which groups?

[Rahul Sundaram]

On 04/28/2010 05:54 PM, Neal Becker wrote:
> I noticed this post:
>
> http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=244442
>
> What would be the process to add mercurial to development group?
>
> How can I see what packages are in which groups?

Refer to

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_use_and_edit_comps.xml_for_package_grou...

fedora-cvs comps

yum grouplist and groupinfo is useful as well

Rahul

[Rex Dieter]

Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 04/28/2010 05:54 PM, Neal Becker wrote:
> > I noticed this post:
> >
> > http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=244442
> >
> > What would be the process to add mercurial to development group?
> >
> > How can I see what packages are in which groups?
>
> Refer to

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_use_and_edit_comps.xml_for_package_grou...
> fedora-cvs comps

fyi, comps is in git now, instructions are referenced in the aforementioned 
document.

-- Rex

[Bill Nottingham]

Rex Dieter ([e-mail]) said:
> fyi, comps is in git now, instructions are referenced in the aforementioned 
> document.

... and mercurial's already an optional package there. Or is this
a request to make it a default one?

Bill

[Neal Becker]

Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Rex Dieter ([e-mail]) said:
> > fyi, comps is in git now, instructions are referenced in the
> > aforementioned document.
>
> ... and mercurial's already an optional package there. Or is this
> a request to make it a default one?
>
> Bill

IMO, mercurial should have the same status as git.  git is default.  Should 
we take a vote?

[Christoph Wickert]

Am Mittwoch, den 28.04.2010, 15:41 -0400 schrieb Neal Becker:
> IMO, mercurial should have the same status as git.  git is default.  Should 
> we take a vote?

-1 on mercurial then

Regards,
Christoph

[Brian Pepple]

On Thu, 2010-04-29 at 00:21 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 28.04.2010, 15:41 -0400 schrieb Neal Becker:
> > IMO, mercurial should have the same status as git.  git is default.  Should 
> > we take a vote?
>
> -1 on mercurial then

-1 here also.

Later,
/B

[Adam Miller]

+1 on mercurial

-AdamM

[Haïkel Guémar]

Le 28/04/2010 21:41, Neal Becker a écrit :
> IMO, mercurial should have the same status as git.  git is default.  Should 
> we take a vote?

Then +1, mercurial is used by many major open source projects (mozilla,
python, linuxTV, openjdk, netbeans, etc ...). btw, why rcs is default,
who uses rcs nowadays ?

H.

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 04/28/2010 09:41 PM, Neal Becker wrote:
> Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > Rex Dieter ([e-mail]) said:
> > > fyi, comps is in git now, instructions are referenced in the
> > > aforementioned document.
> >
> > ... and mercurial's already an optional package there. Or is this
> > a request to make it a default one?
> >
> > Bill
>
> IMO, mercurial should have the same status as git.  git is default.  Should
> we take a vote?

Make both optional.

Devs should know what they need, so there should not be any need to make 
any of them default.

Ralf