> One of the easiest ways for Git users to share repository currently is > using github.com (I think David needs to update that one as well for > post conversion repository). It look up-to-date to me.
> The maintainer of official repository can quickly > merge from Git contributors' reviewed branches with the proper credit > and history *automatically*. The subversion + patches model places > much more burdens on "committers" who need to apply the patches and > maintain the credits with much less powerful tools. Yes. This is why I like contributions via Git so much better. It is trivial for me to pull them down, test them, examine them with the diff tools of my choice, adn commit them directly without writing a commit message for a change that I might not even fully understand. It also saves me from having to worry about what version the patch is against, or whether it is in DOS or Unix format. > It's not equivalent, as Git patches are not in the official repo > before it's merged by the maintainer. The patch urls would point to > contributors own public repositories. We have been doing this a little differently. I prefer to have all of the development in one place instead of having to look around at everyone's repository. We have one central repository (with a mirror) and everyone posts their branches there. Whether they also use GitHub on the side is up to them. --David
