There should be a clearer workflow story for new contributors using other version control systems
|Reported by:||Lucas Taylor||Owned by:|
|Cc:||oubiwann, Lucas Taylor||Branch:|
It's perfectly feasible to use something other than SVN for managing local workflow, but the initial contribution story buries any mention of Git or Bazaar (with no mention of Mercurial).
New contributors should be able to review a set of workflows using other version control systems and it should be clear that it is possible to do so.
The goals would be to:
- Demonstrate that SVN should not be a barrier to contribution
- Be able to point to existing "best-practice" workflows when the next "Twisted should move to VCS-of-the-moment" discussion occurs
- Have a set of documents that can be refined as tooling improves (e.g. hgsubversion is shown to always work and work well)
- Distinguish between what is required for casual contributions and what a core committer would need to do if they wanted to use Git, et al.
This ticket proposes that the a new wiki page be created: Alternate VCS Workflows to communicate the following:
- New contributors can use any VCS they like to manage contributions
- Core committers have a different story that is probably best covered using separate workflow descriptions.
- Contributors will have to be able to use an svn client to checkout and update their local repo
- There should be a list of vetted workflows per VCS with logos for quick identification.
- Each VCS/workflow will have its own wiki page, one for Contributors and one for Committers, e.g
The current relevant wiki pages should also be updated with links to Alternate VCS Workflows:
Add a sub-bullet to the SVN Client link "Use another VCS? ..."
Update the Source Access section with a link to Alternate VCS Workflows