On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 6:40 PM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
<znmeb / cesmail.net> wrote:

> EustŠ“uio Rangel wrote:
>> remember that
>> Git is used to keep projects like the Linux kernel and take a look
>> again on it.
> I am remembering a line from AWDR -- something about everything being
> done for historical reasons. That's precisely why there is a Git and why
> the Linux kernel uses it. The Linux kernel used to be maintained in a
> system called BitKeeper. Linus Torvalds asked the developer(s) of
> BitKeeper to release it as an open source project. They either couldn't
> or wouldn't, so Linus developed Git as a replacement.

Yeah, I know the history. Btw, Is a good one on how making the things
works when there are no options left on the way you think they should
be.

> The point is that the Ruby community is different from the Linux
> community in SCM use cases, community structure, etc. So the argument
> that it's used for the Linux kernel doesn't impress me.

Don't know, after all, they are all developers, if we're talking about
the people who hack the Ruby source code or even get the source to
build from it. The intent was not to impress you, just to give some
more points out of the "Rails world", if the problem is the "fashion"
thing about it.

>> I think it would be cool (ops) to have the Ruby source
>> code on a git repository.
> "A Git repository?" I think the original poster had Github as one of the
> primary motivators for the switch. I don't think "any old Git
> repository" would be acceptable.

Github is a Git repository with *very good* tools. And even if we have
a "old Git repository", for me it will be acceptable enough to store
the Ruby source code. If you don't agree, no problem. As I told on the
previous message, it was my two cents. Take easy, man. ;-)

Regards,