Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:54545
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain darkrainfall.org from 209.85.161.42 cause and error)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJW__o33f3W+t8pNU75OXEh_8RiaqCTakOsR1OegX_NGEw=iTQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <slrnj3tulc.6vi.dsp@experimentalworks.net>
	<CAJW__o0yQQ4aPARHQh5skQTE6OSA4N0nJmjQTZbGOXQb-nP5kg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E4511A3.5090401@php.net>
	<CAJW__o33f3W+t8pNU75OXEh_8RiaqCTakOsR1OegX_NGEw=iTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 12:28:14 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMWw8k-4OYMeHHykBPC5YFNOOWPRNSGkgeByg2cKuTf5n2n2XA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kalle Sommer Nielsen <kalle@php.net>
Cc: Sebastian Bergmann <sebastian@php.net>, internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Choosing a distributed version control system for
 PHP (or not). Call for Participation.
From: gwynne@darkrainfall.org (Gwynne Raskind)

On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 07:54, Kalle Sommer Nielsen <kalle@php.net> wrote:
> 2011/8/12 Sebastian Bergmann <sebastian@php.net>:
>> =C2=A0I never understood why we chose a legacy technology when we migrat=
ed
>> =C2=A0from CVS.
>
> Well I'm sure if there were raised bigger "concerns" or more attention
> headed towards Git/Mercurial/Bzr/Whatever then we might ended up on
> one of them today. I don't remember much of the discussion other than
> it was moved to another list which I didn't subscribe to, I just
> remember it was long and ongoing with our beloved namespace separator
> at the same time which floated internals.

The short version is that those in charge of the move (mostly me)
didn't understand DVCS at the time.

In retrospect, it was a bad move. Git and Hg were less mature back in
early 2009, but not so immature that we couldn't have used either one.
Between the lack of interest in SVN and the ongoing debate over the
namespace separator, there weren't enough voices talking about VCS to
make a difference - I argued that CVS -> SVN was complicated enough
and that jumping straight to DVCS would upset too many people, and
there was enough agreement that SVN went ahead anyway, with the
thought that the Git mirror would be "good enough".

In my defense, at the time SVN looked a good bit better than it does
now. I really did think it'd last, LOL.

-- Gwynne