On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:02:06 +0300 >>>>>> "Vladimir" == <[email protected]> wrote:
Vladimir> Could someone please explain to me why is a VCS other than Vladimir> the three big ones (SVN, Git and HG) is worth using for an Vladimir> open-source project such as this? Maybe it's personal preference...I still find darcs' cherry-picking and it's UI incomparable to the rest. Otoh, I consider that e.g. Monotone is much better designed than Git so will use it for my own project(s). Vladimir> If I'd consider contributing to an open-source project using Vladimir> a VCS I'm unfamiliar with, it's quite likely that I'd get Vladimir> turned off by the hurdle of downloading, installing and Vladimir> learning to use the respective VCS. I think that any capable developer can quickly grasp any of the 'standard' (bzr,hg,git,mtn) DVCS-es (darcs is a little bit different considering it's patch-oriented) and can do: dvcs init; dvcs pull; dvcs commit; dvcs push; easily. Vladimir> I'm sorry, but to me that sounds like a biased personal Vladimir> opinion stated as if it was an objective fact :( I seriously Vladimir> doubt that any project would get more "support" if it used an Vladimir> obscure (albeit possibly better in some ways) DVCS, unless Vladimir> the intended audience for the project's contributors is Vladimir> Maybe Bazaar etc. is more popular with EMACS users/hackers? Emacs is stored in Bazaar repo. Vladimir> Also, I think that it's pretty hard to beat the workflow that Vladimir> GitHub facilitates for open-source projects (with one-click Vladimir> forking and pull requests). Can you explain more about this 'hard to beat workflow' which is not supported by other DVCS-es mentioned above? Sincerely, Gour -- Gour | Hlapicina, Croatia | GPG key: CDBF17CA ----------------------------------------------------------------
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
