There won't be many forks to merge to svn. Core team members will pull from contributors and push to the "official" repo, so single repository will be authoritative source. That's the url which home page should point to.
But the question remains: will somebody want to replicate changes back to svn repo? In my opinion there is no sense of doing so. If testing goes well and you guys decide on Hg vs Git, there should be announced a cut-off date, after which svn is closed. Vadim. On Jun 16, 4:35 am, Julian <[email protected]> wrote: > I meant... > Forking is easy. I was more worried about merging the many forks > (contributions on Bitbucket and Github) into the trunk on SF SVN. Or > is this not an issue? > > On Jun 16, 7:27 pm, Julian Maughan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Forking is easy. I was more worried about merging the may forks from > > Bitbucket and Github intoth > > > On 16 Jun 2010 17:25, "Richard Birkby" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The point of DVCS's is to fork. There are 1007 forks of Ruby on Rails on > > Github. > > I don't think anyone is going to misunderstand that. > > > Richard > > > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Julian <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I personally don't t...
