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

> And it's great and useful. The question is, if a lot of people in the
> community do use Git extensively already, and at least with Rails and
> Merb it proven itself being worth the switch because aspiring
> contributors *do* find it easier to contribute, what really holds Ruby
> core team from making this move? I just want to understand.

You'd have to ask them that. Given the sheer number of Ruby core =20
developers working on MRI and KRI in Subversion at the moment, I think =20
there would need to be a *compelling* reason to switch.

> I cannot think of an interesting project in the Ruby space that
> appeared in 2008 and does not use Git. Either I have a sick metric of
> whether project is interesting (it sure may be so), or Git already
> reigns supreme in the Ruby universe, and I am sure there is a reason to
> it, and MRI development can benefit from the switch.

Well, all of my *new* projects are being done in Git (and on Github!), =20
but I'm not sure it's worth the effort to migrate the ones in =20
Subversion on RubyForge. But the main reason I switched is that my =20
projects tend to so much non-Ruby stuff (R, Perl, PostgreSQL, =20
LyX/LaTeX, bash, and Linux itself) that I don't really consider myself =20
a "Ruby developer" in a very pure sense. And I wanted to learn Git. =20
And Github is built on / by EngineYard. And Git was invented by Linus =20
Torvalds. :)

--
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.