Gerhard Killesreiter wrote:
Well, then we just can stay with CVS. IMO SVN's features aren't that vastly superior to spend much effort on moving. That's absolutely true for Drupal core :)
But it's not true for contrib. And what we I think we all mean when we talk about drupal.org moving to a different VCS is *contrib moving*. Karoly Negyesi wrote:
SVN tools are available. SVN is mature and documentation is plentiful. svn > 1.5 added merge tracking for (much) better team work.
I'd add that the two most attractive features of DVCS systems - better merge algorithms and offline commits - can be achieved by people using SVK in conjunction with SVN. Derek Wright wrote:
A) How do "we" decide which RCS to move to Someone could sit down with a list of our needs and do a point by point analysis of what the various VCS and DVCS would provide or not but really Karoly hits the nail on the head: "If we move, we move to SVN". There isn't another viable choice. So that's A) dealt with ;)
D) Do we leave open the possibility that each project on d.o can choose if it wants CVS or XXX? Do we provide multiple alternatives (svn + git?). Someone can correct me but I think all of the DVCS possibilities can integrate quite well with SVN, once you've provided SVN there's little benefit to providing anything else.
Just imagine this is written in a few months:
C) Do we move everything at once, or do we just move core to the new thing, and leave contrib with CVS as an interim measure to prevent large-scale, simultaneous catastrophe on all sides?
Core doesn't *need* to move, there's no benefit to moving it first, it doesn't even provide much of a comparison to contrib in terms of numbers of commiters and their competence. I think really you'd have to select a subset of contrib modules (I'm sure there'd be no shortage of volunteers) to move first. -- Adrian Simmons (aka adrinux) <http://perlucida.com> e-mail <mailto:adrinux@perlucida.com>