Re: [Tcllib-devel] Regarding SourceForge, the Tcllib CVS, and transitioning somewhere.

[Damon C. <da...@tc...>]

> Even with going "git" Tcl(lib)s visibility is determined by actual marketing, 
> i.e. evangelization.

Yes, but you can't argue that Tcl will get more visibility on some fossil site than on some place like Github.  Github has tremendous momentum behind it and has some really nice tools available.  Though I would caution against their issue tracker since it is VERY barebones and kinda sucks.  Also we run into the same issue of being able to get our data back out.

Once we move to a DVCS we never need worry about getting our data back from someone else ever again.  Everyone with a copy has all the history and data.  Placing Tcl on Github can only help with visibility.

> There is one argument which I was told in private mail, against "git", namely 
> that it(s support) is not very good on windows, and that this might drive 
> developers away, given that Tcl prides itself on good x-platform portability, 
> which means that we need good windows support in our tools for easy development 
> on that platform. At least for those people not using a mix of platforms like 
> me (*).
> 
> Regarding the core assumption behind the argument, of git not being good on 
> Win, that I can't really evaluate. I haven't used git very much and not at all 
> on Windows.
> 
> Given my own preference for fossil I will certainly ask this question on the 
> fossil list as well, for while I am using fossil often now I haven't used it on 
> windows either.

Git on Windows is fine.  It uses MSYS, which is not ideal, but with msysgit and TortoiseGit, you can be up and running doing Windows development in minutes.  I use Git (and Github) for most of my projects now, and setting things up Windows has never been anything more than running a couple of installers.

I'm familiar enough with Fossil as well, and I think either one would be a fine choice on their technical merits.  So much so that I don't even feel it's worth arguing.  You want to argue the difference between the engine in a Honda vs. a Toyota, but both are damn good engines and will get you where you need to go without a care.  It's the trim and options we need to be looking at.

Git has a TON of momentum behind it, both open source and commercial.  I've been really surprised at the number of tools I've seen being created around Git.  Given that I've only played with Fossil a little, I can't speak to the "options" it offers, but I've seen a few.  A wiki?  We already have a great wiki that is used by everyone in the community.  A bug tracker?  Well, that's definitely nice to have as we have seen that as a problem in the past.

But a bug tracker can be written by any Tcl'er in a few nights if we had a mind to.  There are other commercial and open source solutions out there, but do we want to get stuck in holding our data in another proprietary silo?  That would be the one major advantage to Fossil is that the bugs are kept along with the source.

What else?

D