On 11/6/06, Sean Russell <ser / germane-software.com> wrote:
> 1) Sylvain is right about the development model of Ruby being more
> in-line with having a central repository.

Do you think that distributed repository will not be useful for adding
new libs to standart library or make a global redesign in ruby core? I
think it's very similar to kernel development process(adding new
drivers and changing internal interfaces).

> 2) Svn has almost no learning curve for CVS users, which is where Ruby
> is coming from.

Yes, it's true.

> 3) Svn supports sub-projects, which is *very* nice for standard library
> projects.  For example, the REXML library in Ruby could become a
> pointer to the canonical REXML repository; pulling Ruby would pull
> REXML in the right place.  Or vice versa.  The point is, the
> intersection between the REXML repo and the Ruby repo is
> rexml/src/rexml == ruby/libs/rexml, and Subversion allows linking
> these.  Most decentralized VCSes that I'm aware of do not allow this
> sort of organization.

Git allow it by design, but I don't know if such merge-strategy implemented.