Subject: Re: Publishing code and VCSs
To: Hubert Feyrer <>
From: Julio M. Merino Vidal <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 07/10/2007 14:58:37
[ I've shortened the CC list and added tech-pkg ]

On 10/07/2007, at 14:36, Hubert Feyrer wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Julio M. Merino Vidal wrote:
>> The question is not if "it is sufficient" or not.  It is whether the
>> VCS is "decent" (e.g. uses changesets, allows for real directory
>> tracking, etc.) or not and what it can offer us in the *future* ;-)
>> Anyway, I have found public hosting for Monotone projects at http://
>> and have uploaded atf there.  The project's page
>> at shows details on
>> how that works.
>> For now I'll keep that there (and maybe on some other server; aah,
>> the joys of dvcs ;-) and we'll see what we do once we have to publish
>> a release (at which point I want to preserve history) and/or prepare
>> for the final evaluation.
> BTW, just a data point while everyone's extatic about Monotone:
> I found Mercurial easier to setup (just needs python, no need to  
> spend hours compiling booost) and start with.

Now that you bring that up... we'd shorten boost's build times a lot  
by splitting each binary library in its own package.  It should be  
fairly trivial, but when I proposed it people seemed to dislike the  
idea :-(

BTW, extatic?  What was the correct word? ;-)

Julio M. Merino Vidal <>