[ruby-core:25445] Re: [Feature #2033] Move Core Development to Git

mathew wrote:
> Ron Mayer <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Who uses bzr?
> 
> And Ubuntu, and OpenSolaris, so I kinda think it could handle the Ruby sources.

That's not true, is it?

http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/tools/scm/
"The opensolaris.org website supports two SCM solutions:
    * Mercurial (hg) is the default. It was chosen for a
      distributed SCM (DSCM) solution ...
    * Subversion (SVN) is provided for exceptions. It was
      chosen for a centralized solution..."
You can read their analysis of bzr here. It fared OK, but
they like Mercurial over it:
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/tools/scm/bzr-eval/

> 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).

+1.  As for me, I'm happy using Git or Darcs or Mercurial;  but can
tolerate the rest mostly by using tools like git to convert the others to
one of those :-)

ISTM the tools to convert to convert from one to another are getting
better.   Now that I know about the official-ish conversion from svn
to git; I'm pretty happy.  If enough people use it, it may one day become
the default.  Perhaps it'd be nice if there were maintained bzr and/or
mercurial conversions too - if enough people want to use those.

> 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 it痴 an inherent property of any such
> system.  The learning curve is pretty damned steep, so there痴 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."

I don't think that's true - or at least it wasn't early on.

I bet most early GIT users were Bitkeeper and/or TeamWare users (both
proprietary distributed systems) and appreciated the extra
flexibility offered by GIT (for example, the stash and the index)
even though there's some learning curve for those who want to access
the extra flexibility.  IMHO if you don't want to use the extra
features in GIT, the learning curve's quite gentle.