On 12/02/13 19:12, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 08:15:51PM -0800, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
I know you're fond of darcs, but it's well established by experience that we'll get many more contributions (both patches and problem reports) on github.
Have you got any evidence for that?
I've just skimmed the "RFC: migrating to git" thread on glasgow-haskell-users@ in Jan 2011, and a handful of people gave some sort of indication that they might contribute (or contribute more) if GHC and its libraries switched to git. However, looking for them in the git commit logs (which admittedly isn't necessarily going to find all contributions from them, but it's the best I can easily do) for the almost-2-years since we migrated finds very few patches from them:
To be fair, GHC isn't really using github, we're using Trac. The original assertion was that github would make it easier to contribute to bytestring, which doesn't have a Trac. So no bug tracker or wiki or source code browser, and no way to keep track of contributions. It's a no brainer, if you ask me. Switching to git is a small price to pay (and git does get the job done, like it not). When GHC switched to git it was not primarily to increase the rate of contributions, although we hoped that would happen too. It was to make branching and merging easier, and I think there's ample evidence of that - we used to have approximately zero active branches, and now we have several. Cheers, Simon