From: Czarek <cezary.baginski@...>
Date: 2011-01-08T06:40:25+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:34239] Re: Moving to Git?


--69pVuxX8awAiJ7fD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Jan 08, 2011 at 05:37:09AM +0900, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 08/01/11 at 05:13 +0900, Ryan Davis wrote:
> >=20
> > On Jan 7, 2011, at 12:02 , Daniel Bovensiepen wrote:
> >=20
> > Again, I think this is a family matter and the rest of the
> > contributors on this thread are git zealots pushing an agenda more
> > than a necessary solution.
>=20
> Is it really a good indicator? I would assume people able to
> contribute to know that this is just a mirror, and that patches
> should be sent through other means. Or was it documented that pull
> requests would be processed?

I think MRI is a special case, where pushing for full git right now
has a small ROI if any - compared to other projects. And this is
exactly why I agree that it is a "family matter".

My experience is that ruby-head itself has been quite usable for long
while now. It's like: why fix it if it isn't broken? And if something
is broken, it almost never turns out to be Ruby itself. So maybe the
low pull request count is actually a *good* thing?

I would be happier if instead of "Moving to Git", we could focus on
"Moving to Ruby 1.9". With so many cool features it is a shame that so
many ruby projects out there still lack in 1.9 support or show many
warnings, giving the impression of questionable quality.=20

Deprecating things like Config in favor of RbConfig and showing unused
variables are things that improve the quality of Ruby programs.

The same goes for non-MRI Rubies. Like the projects, almost everything
*is* on a Git repo and many would benefit from some 1.9 love and
testing.

As for an internal migration to git: could we have tickets for each
issue so people can help out if necessary (redmine integration, etc)
to start closing them one by one? Or a general "migrate to Git"
ticket, so we can give it an official status? (e.g. "won't fix" :) )


Thanks!


--=20
Cezary Baginski

--69pVuxX8awAiJ7fD
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk0nh5kACgkQgEYXSknSpI+H1wCgtRdsLtewqicDW8ASXCXmqGiv
zvQAoN/R9DsG7dWyyQIOQ02woY0Kw1qm
=9vOm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--69pVuxX8awAiJ7fD--