Short summary:

   Perhaps it'd be a nice compromise if the Ruby project
   endorsed both an official Git and Bzr clone of the
   svn repository; and see which one (if any) get a
   critical mass of users.

   It looks like there's already one (or two, if you
   count the rubyspec one) officialish git clones.

   Would you care to set up a Bzr one?

mathew wrote:
> OK, so now explain why Git, and why none of the many other SCMs.
> For example, bzr has a much simpler to understand interface than Git,

That's certainly a matter of opinion.

> and unlike Git it has a proper Windows version. 

I was under the impression that the windows git fork is coming
along pretty well now.

> So, why not bzr?

One factor might be whether the software has a critical mass of
users -- both to make sure the software stays around and to have
a good chance community members are familiar with the software.

Personally I like Darcs best; but wouldn't recommend it
for Ruby simply because it's quite obscure compared to
Git (used by Linux, Gnome, Perl, Rails, X.org) or
Mercurial (Mozilla, Solaris, Java).
Who uses bzr?  According to Wikipedia, Gnome's java
bindings (while Gnome itself uses git), Squid, MySQL,
and Mailman.  That's nice, but still well short of Git
and Mercurial.

IMHO the fact that there's a decent overlap between
rails and ruby users, it'd be nice to use the same one
they use.


However it looks like core wants to stick with SVN for now
so git and bzr users will rely on conversions for a while
at least.

Apparently there's a recommended git-svn conversion for git
users at git://github.com/shyouhei/ruby.git and another one
at http://github.com/rubyspec/matzruby/tree/master .

Perhaps you could set up similar for bzr?

I think it'd be great if one of those links could be put at
 http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/downloads/
so other people don't waste their efforts running
such conversions themselves.