[development] FAQ: Why is Drupal still using CVS when X is a much better choice?

[Sam Boyer]

On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 16:57 +0100, Sean Burlington wrote:
> Angela Byron wrote:
> > Sean Burlington wrote:
> >> Adrian Simmons wrote:
> >>
> >>> Can we have a commitment that *if* everything needing to be done that 
> >>> Angie kindly listed on http://drupal.org/node/289117 and links 
> >>> therefrom *gets done* we *will* move?
> >>>
> >>
> >> BTW
> >>
> >> is it intentional that comments are disabled on that page???
> >>
> > 
> > Yes. Absolutely, completely and utterly intentional. We do not need to 
> > re-hash this discussion in the handbooks. Let's get our ya-ya's out here 
> > and then document it there for posterity.
> > 
> 
> sigh... Drupal seems like such a closed shop..
> 
> denying comment just adds to the impression
> 
> Even if the discussion wasn't useful - why prevent it?!
> 
> and without a response to Adrian's question I doubt anyone will put in 
> the effort ... and this discussion will come up again.

*Snip*
On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 10:19 -0700, Derek Wright wrote:
...
> p.s. Sam, please don't let that stop you from taking over  
> versioncontrol_api.  That'd still be a good thing for project*, even  
> if d.o isn't using SVN or git. ;)

On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 13:34 -0500, Sam Boyer wrote:
...
> No worries :) As I said in the caveat of my initial response here, I'm
> just providing information, not advocating. Really, even if it doesn't
> sound like it at times :P. I've already taken over vcs api, and will be
> doing what's needed there regardless of how all these decisions play
> out.

*/Snip*

To the extent that working on version control API will contribute to
moving in this direction, I'm committed.


Honestly, my feeling is that Adrian's request puts Dries/Gerhard/whoever
else in an untenable position. It's not that Angie hasn't done an
'empress of open-source awesomeness'-level job with the documentation on
that page. It's that no one vested with the responsibility of managing
something as important as d.o itself can be expected to solidly commit
to implementing an amorphous path forward. We may have identified the
right questions on that handbook page, but it doesn't mean they're going
to produce tenable answers. Until we get to the point where either a)
there's a specified proposal on the table (probably with funding
attached to it) that details the process by which we would arrive at a
new system, or b) enough of the necessary coding has already gotten done
that it becomes possible to 'see' our way through to a concrete solution
(which would then STILL need to be written up as a concrete proposal), I
don't think it's fair to ask for any such commitment.

I think that both a) and b) are feasible, and they're not mutually
exclusive. I also tend to think that b) is considerably more likely to
happen for a number of reasons (big surprise that it's the route I'm
personally choosing to pursue), most importantly because it's the route
that connects with work that currently needs doing - on project*, on vcs
api, etc.

And at the end of the day, that's really what I think about all this: if
you want to see a better/smarter/niftier/whatever version control system
in place for drupal, then participate in the drupal do-ocracy and help
shape the tools we have into the tools they could/should be.

Sam