Clearly, with an inflammatory subject like that you're probably expecting a false question, and I quickly in my journal post say "Yes!" or "No!".
I am, clearly, not pro-git. But I'm actually asking a real question
Git still has problems being Windows friendly (most solutions still make you act in a very unix-like manner) and so it's still not on my radar to move any time soon.
But I keep seeing one particular pro-git (and pro-distributed in general) argument come up over and over again in git discussions, the argument that git helps encourage contribution.
And THIS question is one I'm very interested in, it's something that might actually push me towards switching.
I much preferred CVS for it's better branch logic, but because svn makes it so much easier to contribute switching to SVN resulted in improved contribution rates despite the shitty branching.
Has anyone actually measured rate of change and rate of contribution across a SVN to Git conversion?
For my repository, I have quite a good understanding of how many people are contributing.
Here's a better one showing contributors over time, compared to the (epic) contributor growth rate of Padre.
Is it possible to establish via actual metrics that the diversity of contributors and rate of change flowing into the final production CPAN releases is increased relative to the rate and diversity of change prior to the move?
Have you done it? Can I see the comparative results?
Does the theoretical improvement to contribution result in a real world improvement in contribution? Or does it suffer from the "You are not Linux" scaling problem, that our projects mostly just aren't big enough to benefit?