I knew someone would misread that. I was not referring to anyone on this list. People on this list are at the pointy end of the stick, although we have a spread of abilities, most are in the upper end of the scale. The reason for this is simple. It's because to do it because we like it, a passion as it were. And that's when you see people at their best. Even with differences of opinion (and experience) such as this. Compare this with the corporate world in which I work. In the quest for the immortal dollar, the bar is being LOWERED, not raised. The average skill level of people is stunningly low. Believe it or not, I _STILL_ have arguments with people as to whether people need to check things in or not. And how to check in, and that you DO need to do an update first, before you commit, and not delete the dir in SVN and then add everything afresh (thus wiping out other people's changes). Sad but true. In this day and age.
I was referring 'people of questionable parentage' from my previous project. Several vendors did not have any SCM at all. Fine, give them Hg. But don't force those with mature processes in place to change. Especially when no one has any skills or experience in Hg/git on how/why/etc to set up and manage multiple repos. Even those who were experienced in using GIT, they ended up with hundreds of repos, and it became a real mess to manage. Oh, and stop stupid things like checking built binaries into repos... As robert points out, it's not just the technical reasons for a change that need to be considered, there are all of the other reasons, training, knowledge, support etc that also need to be considered. As someone else points out, if CVS still works for you, fine, stick with it. So, I have a broader view of SCM usage. It's not just the tool being used, it *must* encompass HOW it is to be used. -Chris (who is clearly wearing his SCM hat today... :-) ) On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com>wrote: > Chris, > > Just whom amongst us are you labeling 'a few immature devs'? > > Many of us here have been using both git and svn, extensively, for > years now, and have a preference for git based on plenty of practical > experience. While git is new-ish at the ASF, it's official, and a > growing list of projects are using it > > Many of the, ahem, outboard components of Maven are in git already. > > Speaking for myself, I've used svn, I've used 'git svn', and I've used > git. Plenty. And it's my considered judgement that git would be better > for this project, and I voted as such. Please don't cast asparagus on > my by indirectly calling me a cultist. > > --benson > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >
