On Mar 27, 2015 1:32 PM, "Benjamin Fritz" <[email protected]> wrote: > If we use Bitbucket (or another service that supports both), nobody > needs to learn a new tool. And we can combine both repositories together > under one project page. People could clone server-side from either > repository depending on their system of choice, and that decision > wouldn't impact their ability to easily contribute back. > > Of course, I suppose we could always link to two sites from one vim.org > page. But I'd rather any Hg repository be just as "valid" as the Github > one, not some read-only mirror nobody looks at. But it sounds like that > is the way it is heading.
Why should this be different than any other open source project? If you want to contribute, you need to learn the tools that are being used. When tools change, then something different needs to be learned. It's not up to the project to accommodate every user's individual desires. I didn't know Mercurial when Vim switched to it from CVS, but I've learned to use it. Other projects I contribute to use git. Thanks to that I'm now comfortable with both Mercurial and git. Change happens. Having a canonical repo for Vim's code is important. Introducing multiple repos for a single codebase just increases the risk of errors. I've never encountered a project which officially supports more than one (especially with differing VCS). Unofficial mirrors I've seen, but people using those communicate suggested changes back by using patches and email. -- -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
