Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I used to version all of my modules with darcs. Other than patches from my friends who were already sold on darcs, I received only diffs against CPAN HEAD. Once I moved to git (and perhaps more importantly, github), I did begin receiving patches (many for Any::Moose, a few for App::Nopaste, etc). darcs was cited as a major barrier to entry because it required ghc (which has a notoriously long compilation time).

    So in my experience, choice of VCS definitely impacts user contributions. Whether it matters significantly for git versus Subversion, I don't know. Both are pretty easy to install. Both have a lot of mindshare (and thus, documentation and support communities).

    git has two advantages over Subversion for me. Its distributed nature is totally a win. Would you grant me a commit bit to your repository if you knew I was malicious? With a distributed VCS, that problem vanishes for you. But I'm still a first-class VCS citizen. I still get to use the VCS to commit atomically, revert commits, and anything else.

    The other advantage is that git's tools totally beat Subversion's. Until recently, Subversion didn't even have good tools (except SVK) for merging. But git has all sorts of useful things like bisect, amend-commit, rebase -i, apply, cherry-pick, and (as alluded to earlier) github.

    • Another quick point I forgot to make: I have had comaint on Log::Dispatch for a month now, but I haven't touched the repository. I don't have any inclination to deal with a fifth version control system (Mercurial) for a single module. I'm sure I'm not alone in this laziness. :)