On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 07:54, Kalle Sommer Nielsen <ka...@php.net> wrote: > 2011/8/12 Sebastian Bergmann <sebast...@php.net>: >> I never understood why we chose a legacy technology when we migrated >> from CVS. > > Well I'm sure if there were raised bigger "concerns" or more attention > headed towards Git/Mercurial/Bzr/Whatever then we might ended up on > one of them today. I don't remember much of the discussion other than > it was moved to another list which I didn't subscribe to, I just > remember it was long and ongoing with our beloved namespace separator > at the same time which floated internals.
The short version is that those in charge of the move (mostly me) didn't understand DVCS at the time. In retrospect, it was a bad move. Git and Hg were less mature back in early 2009, but not so immature that we couldn't have used either one. Between the lack of interest in SVN and the ongoing debate over the namespace separator, there weren't enough voices talking about VCS to make a difference - I argued that CVS -> SVN was complicated enough and that jumping straight to DVCS would upset too many people, and there was enough agreement that SVN went ahead anyway, with the thought that the Git mirror would be "good enough". In my defense, at the time SVN looked a good bit better than it does now. I really did think it'd last, LOL. -- Gwynne -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
