On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 16:43, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale / gmail.com> wrote:
>  ¨Âáîòõâù ðòïêåãôó æïòíåòìù ïî òõâùæïòçïò ïôèåóåìæ èïóôåä óö> repositories are now cloned on github, and in lots of cases the way it
> appears to me that's where they are actively maintained.
> Rubyforge has provided git as an alternative to svn for some time
> now.  ¨Âôèãáóå ïæ íù ÒéÃáçåí¬ èáöå çïçéôèõâ áîÒõâùæïòç> repositories containing it.

Well, my RubyForge project was cloned on github against my wishes, and
it's not exactly fair to cite git's popularity on RubyForge when the
only other option they offer is SVN.

On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 15:54, Ron Mayer
<rm_rails / cheapcomplexdevices.com> ¨Âòïôå> Who uses bzr?  ¨Âããïòäéîç ôï ×éëéðåäéᬠÇîïíå§êáöá
> bindings (while Gnome itself uses git), Squid, MySQL,
> and Mailman.

And Ubuntu, and OpenSolaris, so I kinda think it could handle the Ruby sources.

Git is currently popular because Linus created it, and because it's
being pushed on everyone by git zealots, who will literally fork a
project onto git against the wishes of its owner because they refuse
to use any other tool. This general assholishness of git zealots is
also visible in things like ¨Âôô𺯯óöîèõâ®ãïí
But this shouldn't be a popularity contest. It should be a matter of
evaluating which systems meet requirements best. There are serious
technical and working practice reasons to dislike git--the magic pull
and automatic merge and commit, possibility of partial commits and
limbo files, poor documentation, loss of metadata and history if you
rename a file, visible SHA-1 hashes as revision names, and so on.

Ultimately, I decided to get over my dislike of Python and use bzr
because it works well on every platform, allows me to work the way I
want rather than forcing a particular model, lets me change my mind
about workflow and hosting easily at any time, requires no special
hosting and makes it trivial to publish a branch anywhere, uses the
containers my OS already supports, has no major UI pitfalls I could
find, and is fast enough. Yes, git is faster, but bzr is now faster
than git was, and I don't care if a commit takes 10 seconds; yes, git
uses less disk space, but disk space is cheap.

That said, I'm also willing to use svn, mercurial or monotone. I don't
do religion; I don't believe in One True VCS, One True Text Editor, or
even One True Programming Language (sorry Matz).

I think Scott James Remnant
<URL:http://www.netsplit.com/2009/02/17/git-sucks-2/> is right on the
money when he says:

"My personal opinion about this is that Arch (and now GIT) is the
first distributed revision control system that people try, and then
they get it.  They understand why distributed revision control is so
awesome, and they attribute this awesomeness to Arch (and now GIT)
rather than realising that itÃÔ an inherent property of any such
system.  The learning curve is pretty damned steep, so thereÃÔ a lot
of investment to learn Arch (and now GIT) and once people have made an
investment in something, and received an epiphany as an award, they
become very attached to it and very aggressive about attacks on it."


mathew