On Tuesday, 26. February 2008, Larry Garfield wrote:
Gerhard Killesreiter wrote:
What we coud do (as long as the relevant backend for the project module exists) is to move core development to git. There we are free of social reasons. [snip]
Except for those people who do checkout anonymously from core for various reasons and don't want to have to deal with yet another RCS with completely different semantics...
Arguably, this is a prime example of where the git-cvs bridge would actually help instead of complicating stuff. (Can be set up in a backwards-compatible way, no documentation changes needed in order to keep working, doesn't complicate the process for contrib authors.) Given that core has probably the largest number of patches that were not authored by the committer, and is generally developed in a more Linux-style fashion (few gatekeepers, many branches and patches from outside - as opposed to contrib), I tend to like this proposal and think that core is probably the place where distributed version control would be most helpful. --Jakob Petsovits