On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 13:37:03 +0200, Torsten Curdt wrote:
There is no proof that more contributors will suddenly appear just
because the tool has changed.
The numbers James brought tell a different story.
Maybe just a very specific indicator and not scientific - but so is
your
claim that it does not change anything at all.
I did not claim anything.
As people noted, a contributor can fairly easily do
$ svn co ...
... modify trunk ...
$ svn diff > issue.patch
I can hardly see how this 2-steps procedure can be a barrier to new
bringing new contributions.
Maybe for tiny fixes it's that easy - for longer contribution where
you
follow development it's not.
How often does that happen (within Commons)?
How often will a new contributor embark in a long rewrite? [And if he
does, how many more newbie "mistakes" will the reviewers need to signal
and correct?]
In Commons Math, I don't remember an issue because of using Subversion.
[And I don't deny that Git is very probably better. But do we really
need the power? If not, I'd prefer not to be _obliged_ to learn it
right
now in order to be able to work on CM, just because of a hypothetical
miraculous contributor that would be put off by Subversion.]
Anyway - I'll try not to get sucked into this discussion again.
Just wanted to state that I think it could be a good thing.
A good thing for those who know how to use Git. Not so good for me.
If the most active contributors to a given component can agree to
switch,
that's fine; but a majority of people that do not contribute to a given
component should not impose a change there (IMHO).
Regards,
Gilles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
