On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 2:16 AM, Urabe Shyouhei<shyouhei / ruby-lang.org> wrote:
> Federico Builes wrote:
>> Hello Urabe,
>>
>> On Sep 3, 2009, at 6:44 PM, Urabe Shyouhei wrote:
>>
>>> Ruby is a basic infrastructure that needs to be stable.  ЁВйф зпеу бу
>>> agile as
>>> Rails, there should be problems.  ЁВ ртпвменбве фиибтдоеуу жп>>> Rails to
>>> catch-up with Ruby, when both of them are equally as agile.
>>
>> Is this issue really related to the SCM that the project uses?
>>
>> Many projects have had an increase in their number of collaborators when
>> they moved to Git, but that doesn't mean that no one will be in charge
>> and that it will be moving so fast that projects like Rails won't be
>> able to keep up with it (I'm not entirely sure that I got your point
>> there).
>
> Yes, it may not be directly a SCM issue.  ЁВие ийуфптпж тхвщ ибвеео > history of unmaintained codes.  ЁВцефпдбчйфипхфигибппж дйуфтйвхфе> development, there are many lines of codes in its repo which are not baby-sat.
> When you want to increase number of contributions yet decrease number of
> unmaintained codes, there should be some mechanism to enforce that. Ruby lacks
> that now.
>
>>> So sorry but I don't like the idea for Ruby to move into a fully
>>> decentralized
>>> development.  ЁВиете уипхмд ве бф мебупоуйозме геофет пж Тхвщ бу че
>>> have
>>> today.  ЁВод бу геофтбмйъедецемпрнеофппмУхвцетуйпо йу фивеуф
>>> thing we
>>> have.
>>
>> Excuse my lack of knowledge in this matter, but what prevents ruby-core
>> from maintaining a canonical Ruby Git repository hosted in the same
>> servers that SVN resides in right now (or in Github if you don't want to
>> go through the admin. hassle)?
>> You can still give commit access only to your list of trusted members
>> and this "central" repository will be the one that everyone pulls off
>> when they want to get the official version.
>> What does SVN gives you that Git misses in this case?
>
> You're saying "there's no reason not to move to git"; but I'm saying "there's
> no reason to move to git".  ЁВищ щпибфе уцуп нхги ЁВф§ретжегжпху
I identify with this sentiment. I resisted moving away from svn too.

It wasn't until a few months of deeply using git that I began to
appreciate how it had changed my development style.

I think the git-svn mirror is a fine bridge. However, I encourage Ruby
core to use the bridge, too, even if just to experiment.


>>> I think a centralized SVN repo + official git-svn mirror is the best
>>> way for
>>> ruby because that should suit for its characteristics and development
>>> style.
>>
>> I would really appreciate it if you could be more specific in the
>> "characteristics and development style" that SVN fits so well and that
>> Git doesn't.
>
> I was pointing to the fact that ruby development is centralized.  ЁВеофтбмйъед
> to matz.  ЁВбцщпецет уеео уйозме мйое енбйжтпн нбфъ фибф кхуф убщу
> "commit that please"?  ЁВищ тхвщ децемпрнеодп опугбмйу гмебт» нбфъфи> bottleneck.  ЁВегеофтбмйъед децемпрнеойоуйуф ийЁбод хуфп зтбфемдемезбфе
> what he's doing now to our community.  ЁВетибру фибф уипхмд нбле ЩПибррщ¬ вх> also make matz unhappy.  ЁВщпчбоф фп ийкбгл ийпфиегпннйффетурпче> and authority, you should watch your step not to offend them.  ЁВртпфегфией> sanctuary yet to make your path for contribution, a SVN repo + git-svn mirror
> is the best way I believe.

Ultimately, any development workflow may be accommodated, included
protected sanctuaries.

But I think the feeling is clear: no hasty moves for unneeded benefits.

Best,
jeremy