From: Federico Builes <federico.builes@...>
Date: 2009-09-04T14:59:40+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:25349] Re: [Feature #2033] Move Core Development to Git

Hello Urabe,

On Sep 3, 2009, at 6:44 PM, Urabe Shyouhei wrote:

> Ruby is a basic infrastructure that needs to be stable.  If it goes  
> as agile as
> Rails, there should be problems.  A problem may be the hardness for  
> 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).

> So sorry but I don't like the idea for Ruby to move into a fully  
> decentralized
> development.  There should be at least one single center of Ruby as  
> we have
> today.  And as a centralized development tool, Subversion is the  
> best 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?


> 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.

> Most claims from git enthusiasts can be met with a git-svn mirror I  
> believe.

An official git-svn mirror would be greatly appreciated, it would be  
better than the current situation, but can't we "have the cake and eat  
it too"?

Thanks

--
Federico