Issue #2033 has been updated by Florian Gilcher. > It would be a real shame if after all this discussion and enthusiasm we just maintained the status quo. Sorry, but long discussions usually show that the proposal didn't find widespread acceptance. I think that it is far more important that this move not be taken lightly. > A possible compromise is to incrementally move to Git by splitting the stdlib into one Git repository > per library. They could either be periodically merged back into SVN or, ideally, distributed as gems. > [...] Actually, SVN is quite good to manage a standard lib in the style that is present. You can checkout subtrees, etc. All those things are not possible with GIT. You are proposing a significant change in the way ruby is organized. Someone would have to check for changes in other repositories regularly. Where are those repositories hosted? What if one of them is down? Do rules that apply to ruby trunk/master also apply to their trunk/master? Also, the number of people with indirect, possibly unchecked access to stdlib libraries could rise. I don't know whether you followed the GHC 'move' to GIT. (Long story short: it didn't really happen) I wouldn't want that in Ruby. How to you merge history if anyone working on stdlib uses a different VCS? > This wouldn't need to be an all-or-nothing move. Libraries with active maintainers could remain in SVN > at their discretion. Nor would it wrest anybody of control. This would mean splitting stdlib into (at least) two kinds of libraries that have to be handled differently. > This thread shows that their is significant interest in making Ruby's development distributed and open. It also shows that there is interest in keeping it under control. > There's passion here. Feed it. I don't like passion as a technical argument. I for example dislike git. It is a great implementation of a distributed filesystem with no good client, mediocre man pages, arcane behaviour (fast-forwarding branches for example) and far too many ways to shoot yourself in the foot. Feed it. Actually, I really like the way development on darcs works: Patches are send to a mailing list, reviewed, and potentially merged. There are not a lot of people that are actually allowed to pull patches into main. So the repos is really closed down, but all patches are offical (and can be pulled by anyone). ---------------------------------------- http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/2033 ---------------------------------------- http://redmine.ruby-lang.org