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