[ruby-core:34239] Re: Moving to Git?

On Sat, Jan 08, 2011 at 05:37:09AM +0900, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 08/01/11 at 05:13 +0900, Ryan Davis wrote:
> > 
> > On Jan 7, 2011, at 12:02 , Daniel Bovensiepen wrote:
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> 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. 

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!


-- 
Cezary Baginski