[Nitro] RFC: Basic Points for a Better Nitro/Og

Kirk Haines wyhaines at gmail.com
Fri Sep 21 13:13:33 EDT 2007

> However, that's beyond the scope of this consideration. There's
> nothing wrong with Darcs. The question is whether Subversion would
> better serve Nitro b/c the Ruby community in general has adopted it.
> Ruby itself uses it, Rails uses it, Facets now uses it, etc.

Does that matter?  People aren't going to choose what framework to
use, or what ORM, or what library of utilities, based on the revision
control system.  The consideration should be A) Does the revision
control system meet the needs of the projects, and B) Is there an
_easily_ available, usable client for the RCS system so that people
who want to participate in the project don't have a barrier there.  I
think this is where darcs falls short.  I originally started using
Mercurial because, at the time, getting darcs to work on an older
linux system was a ridiculous task.

SVN is kind of the Microsoft Windows of revision control systems right
now.  Lots of people use it because access to it is very easy.
Everyone has it.  If development sticks with darcs, then somewhere in
the documentation about the project, I suggest providing links to
where one can find darcs clients, because "darcs client" in Google is
less that useful, and I do imagine that having to jump through a lot
of hoops to access the repository does put people off.

Kirk Haines

More information about the Nitro-general mailing list