[ruby-core:25354] Re: [Feature #2033] Move Core Development to Git

On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 2:16 AM, Urabe Shyouhei<[e-mail]> wrot=
e:
> Federico Builes wrote:
>> Hello Urabe,
>>
>> On Sep 3, 2009, at 6:44 PM, Urabe Shyouhei wrote:
>>
>>> Ruby is a basic infrastructure that needs to be stable. =A0If it goes a=
s
>>> agile as
>>> Rails, there should be problems. =A0A 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).
>
> Yes, it may not be directly a SCM issue. =A0The history of ruby has been =
a
> history of unmaintained codes. =A0Even today without the chaos of distrib=
uted
> development, there are many lines of codes in its repo which are not baby=
-sat.
> When you want to increase number of contributions yet decrease number of
> unmaintained codes, there should be some mechanism to enforce that. Ruby =
lacks
> that now.
>
>>> So sorry but I don't like the idea for Ruby to move into a fully
>>> decentralized
>>> development. =A0There should be at least one single center of Ruby as w=
e
>>> have
>>> today. =A0And 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?
>
> You're saying "there's no reason not to move to git"; but I'm saying "the=
re's
> no reason to move to git". =A0Why you hate svn so much? =A0It's perfect f=
or us.

I identify with this sentiment. I resisted moving away from svn too.

It wasn't until a few months of deeply using git that I began to
appreciate how it had changed my development style.

I think the git-svn mirror is a fine bridge. However, I encourage Ruby
core to use the bridge, too, even if just to experiment.


>>> 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.
>
> I was pointing to the fact that ruby development is centralized. =A0Centr=
alized
> to matz. =A0Have you ever seen a single line email from matz that just sa=
ys
> "commit that please"? =A0Why ruby development do not scale is clear; matz=
 is the
> bottleneck. =A0Decentralized development insist him (and us) to grately d=
elegate
> what he's doing now to our community. =A0Perhaps that should make YOU hap=
py, but
> also make matz unhappy. =A0If you want to hijack his / other committers' =
power
> and authority, you should watch your step not to offend them. =A0To prote=
ct their
> sanctuary yet to make your path for contribution, a SVN repo + git-svn mi=
rror
> is the best way I believe.

Ultimately, any development workflow may be accommodated, included
protected sanctuaries.

But I think the feeling is clear: no hasty moves for unneeded benefits.

Best,
jeremy