On Aug 22, 2010, at 2:15 PM, Miles Parker wrote:

> Agreed. I really think you should make the break to a Distributed  
> VCS like Git or Mercurial in the process. A lot of Eclipse projects  
> are moving from CVS/SVN to Git. It should make a big difference in  
> terms of people being able to contribute to and morph code and then  
> having the forks be able to merge back together down the road. It  
> will be an interesting shift in software ecologies with I think  
> unexpected ramifications. For example, I'm thinking that while now  
> forking is seen as damage that paradoxically it might provide more  
> integration between projects as various projects are able to make  
> the kinds of local modifications to to other systems that allow them  
> to fit into their own projects. Such modifications then could be re- 
> integrated once various stable configurations arose from local  
> needs. It feels potentially like a much more dynamic creative  
> process is possible with less of the kind of open source stove- 
> piping we're all used to. though I must say that right now I can't  
> even figure out how to get Git to work with two developers merging  
> code.

Well, the honest truth is: I don't know Git or Mercurial very well at  
all, and like all good developers, I fear what I don't know well. :-)   
I am comfortable with SVN.  (BTW, only Mercurial and SVN are available  
on Google Code -- Git doesn't support HTTP).

So it's gotta take a pretty compelling reason to do Mercurial with  
MASON and ECJ.  But the advantages of a distributed VCS tend to be for  
large projects with many developers and forks.  MASON and ECJ just  
don't have that community structure.  So I remain leaning to SVN but  
still open to further debate and convincing.

[of course we can always convert down the line]

Sean