I think all your points are important but are not exclusive. I totally agree with Romain, the usage and features are extremely important and we should move on (following Java version, etc…) but the simpler someone can contribute, the faster we'll go.
I think, as Luc said, that git is a big plus for that. Let's say you're a lambda person, you just use commons for work and found a bug you need to fix for your app. On svn, you'll fix it, use it in your app, but you will not share it, may be not even with your colleagues since you'll have to build up a svn server for your fork. It's obvious that in this condition, you won't open a Jira and give a patch : it's not your work and it's too long/boring. On git you'll share it easily with your colleagues and the cost to give it back to the ASF is near to zero (it's just a link to it's repo). I think the real question is, how much does it cost to the current commiters to move from svn to git ? And the answer is «not much» just the time to create the repos and push the code to it and one hour or two to get used to git. Do we really want to loose more potential contributions because of a resistance to change ? I'm a +1 for git. 2013/10/8 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > 2013/10/8 luc <l...@spaceroots.org> > > > Hi all, > > > > Le 2013-10-08 09:10, Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit : > > > > Never said the opposite but git or svn is not a questioin IMO, both are > >> simple and usable today. I'm more attracted by features than the infra > >> around a project. > >> > > > > I don't fully agree. The infra is also important (not more or less than > > rules, just as important). > > > > the point is: how many projects are you contributing compared to the number > you use...a few in enterprise generally. So we shouldn't prevent users to > contribute (not my point at all) but we shouldn't see it as a first citizen > while the other things are not fixed. The usage and features are far more > important and what should be fixed right now IMO. > -- Xavier DETANT
