Quoting Michael Klishin <michael.s.klishin / gmail.com>:

> Happy new year everyone.
> A question to Matz and all the Ruby contributors: are there any real
> reasons to use Subversion and not Git for Ruby development?
>
> I don't want to turn this into "centralized VCSs suck, distributed VCSs
> rock" kind of discussion, but seriously: many large open source
> projects moved to DVCS in last year or two (as large as OpenJDK,
> OpenSolaris, MySQL, Zope, Firefox, Perl 5), and some of them (Ruby on
> Rails is the most obvious example) have seen dramatically increased
> number of contributions from the outside of the "core team", because
> with DVCS, experimentation of all sorts is so much easier. Others that
> did not are considering a move and in process of evaluation of
> different options: FreeBSD and (again, I may be totally wrong) Emacs
> (leaning towards Bazaar?).
>
> A number of well known projects in the Ruby space use Git now: from
> Rails and Merb to RSpec to DataMapper to Rubinius to even Rake I
> believe (I may be wrong here). RubySpec uses Git, by the way.
>
> Recently series of patches by Brent Roman reminded me again how
> different the process of evaluating of different
> forks/experiments/patches with Subversion is. Yeah, download 7 files,
> apply them in order, with diff-mode in Emacs helps. I mean, it is not
> *really* hard but it wasn't a no brainer either. Pulling from a person
> who came up with something I may be interested in using Git (and GitHub
> obviously) is so much easier, that you start feeling the difference
> once you get used to DVCS process.
>
> Of course, there is git-svn and hg-svn and bzr-svn of all sorts, and
> they all work fine, but people seems to use what official repository
> uses. Probably because they don't want to bother converting their
> patches, or maybe because converters like git-svn look fragile to them,
> it does not matter much.
>
> What do you think? Is there a way for community to help with this
> transition, if you decide it makes sense?
>
> MK

I'm really not an expert on revision control systems, but just off the =20
top of my head it seems like there are just too many of them, and =20
there's bound to be some kind of "market shakeout", leaving a "Big =20
Three". Right now, I'd guess that those three would be Subversion, Git =20
and one other. I really don't know whether CVS will survive -- there =20
are still quite a few projects using it, but I can't actually name =20
one. And I don't know if Mercurial, Darcs, and Bzr have enough =20
momentum to be worth thinking about.

My experiences with Git for my own small projects have been, shall we =20
say, less than satisfactory after about six months, compared with =20
about two years of Subversion and about ten years using ClearCase at =20
my day job. But that's just a learning curve issue, I think. Clearly =20
to be an open-source hacker, one *must* be Git-savvy, and all of my =20
new projects are going to Github.

One other question for the community, though -- is there room for =20
*another* version control system specific to the Ruby community, =20
tailored to our unique needs?

--
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P), WOM

I've never met a happy clam. In fact, most of them were pretty steamed.