From: Luis Lavena <luislavena@...>
Date: 2008-03-25T23:39:59+09:00
Subject: Re: Why git instead of mercurial?

On 25 mar, 11:15, Robert Dober <robert.do...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Wincent Colaiuta <w...@wincent.com> wrote:
>
> Although I am a perfect fan and user of Mercurial I believe that this
> discussion is at least OT if not futile.
> If the Ruby team has chosen GIT they either had
> (a) no knowledge of Mercurial and GIT just satisfied their needs
> (b) known both and decided to use GIT for some (surely perfectly
> reasonable, but not really interesting ) reason
> and why should they care about the implementation language?
> They might have chosen a different DistVCS if it were written in Ruby maybe ;)
>

Is not Ruby team that choose Git over Hg over Any-Other-DVCS, but most
of the Ruby developers that works on projects (Web frameworks or
tools) decided for Git instead of anything else.

> Honestly I do not see any connection to Ruby in this thread.

There is a connection anyway. The option for a VCS/DVCS make difficult
for users contribute back with patches to fix issues.

I know there are a few porjects that still uses CVS (win32utils).

I can't say the choose for Git is alienating the contribution, but I
can say is performing a sort of discrimination and exclusion for those
users that can't integrate Git properly under their platforms or faces
restrictions regarding the tools that can install under their
environments.

Regards,
--
Luis Lavena