On 20 May 2010, at 10:18, RC wrote: > On Wed, 19 May 2010 08:19:33 +0300 > Uoti Urpala <uoti.urpala at pp1.inet.fi> wrote: > >> It's just not possible to create a competitive version based on svn >> without wasting a lot of effort. > > It wouldn't be wasted at all, as far more people would be able to use > it, and more would work on. Why so? Anyone can use a git repository, they just check out from their instead of SVN. git is actually better for collaboration, as one can create an account at GitHub (or one's own server) make the changes and then Uoti, you, me or anyone can then get the changes from there. They can easily be merged into the "official git repository" or, if the official maintainer doesn't like them, it's no problem for changes to be tracked from the official repository to the fork. git was specifically designed to facilitate this. If Uoti's version ultimately proves better, then users and distro maintainers will eventually start using it. It doesn't benefit the community having two incompatible version trackers, but I don't see that SVN is in any way inherently "better", and in many ways it is inherently worse. SVN requires approval before a 3rd-party can make commits; this maintains the "purity" of the repository, but git makes it easier for *everyone* if I come out of nowhere and produce some really great improvements which I publish that way. Anyone can easily test my version, and they can easily be added to the official repo. Stroller.
