Comments on Git/SVN: With SVN, you can check out any arbitrary directory, and keep it linked to the source control management (SCM).
With Git, you have to get the whole repository, w/every commit ever. (you can do a depth=1 clone but it won't work as a repo). Some projects mitigate this by splitting their modules into separate git repos, and/or using submodules. SVN externals are awesome, Git submodules, not so much so. Anyways, I'm not against git, but I am wary of the hype. Putting stuff on github doesn't mean one will get a lot more involvement. And the distributed paradigm/workflow is quite a bit different from the SVN (consolidated) workflow, so if your user base is SVN knowing, Git unknowing, this can ripple out and actually slow contribution. It sounds like there are a fair amount of folks comfortable with Git, which is good. If most of the committers know it, heck, that's the main thing. Otherwise maybe keep SVN auto-synched to Git so SVN folks can keep submitting patches while they get up to speed. But maybe they'd never get up to speed without being forced, so... meh. If I were to vote, I'd +1 Git but warn that transitions are not always smooth sailing. Especially if there are a lot of deployment workflows based on SVN. :Denny -- The secret of success is to know something nobody else knows. Aristotle Onassis _______________________________________________ Matterhorn mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn To unsubscribe please email [email protected] _______________________________________________
