Russell Stuart <russell-deb...@stuart.id.au> writes: > On Thu, 2015-04-16 at 23:13 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> However, I still stand by the decision to only support a single VCS, at >> least when you start, because you can move a lot faster and implement a >> lot more functionality that people care a great deal about. > Woo, slow down there. Here I was thinking the discussion was about > spinning up a server using exist software. Has the discussion moved to > writing our own or even modifying something to suit Debian's needs? No. My comment was in the context of a comparison between Sourceforge and GitHub, and I was just making the point that I think this was a wise decision on GitHub's part. It was also in the context of a couple of other packages that are possible contenders for a revision control management framework, both of which have made the same choice, also (IMO) wisely. > As for one DVCS to rule the world - that also sounds like a bit of a > stretch. While we're pondering whether dropping support for older VCSes is a bit of a stretch, the broader software community is just shrugging and using GitHub. If the goal is to produce a viable free software alternative to GitHub, supporting Subversion or bzr or Mercurial would be nowhere on my list of requirements. Obviously, supporting a choice of DVCSes would be great, all other things being equal. But given the resources available for a free software project, all else is not going to be equal, and there are *lots* of other features that are a much higher priority for more developers than making the diminishing minority of people who don't use Git more comfortable. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87r3rj4470....@hope.eyrie.org
