Re: patch: fixes in the doc

On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 11:21:52 -0600 (MDT)
Kevin Atkinson <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, Neskie Manuel wrote:
> 
> > Well I'm on the list, but I can't help you much, but I would
> > support a move to  using git or some other DVCS.  I'm just
> > comparing my usage of CVS with openoffice to other projects
> > that use git.
> 
> While, I have recently been playing around with git at work and
> like it a lot, I do not think I will be moving Aspell to git any
> time in the near future.  Mainly because of lack of time, and
> also because I am still not 100% sure git is the way to go.  So
> for now Aspell will stay with the crusty old CVS.
[...]

To follow up on that, and while I have not contributed much
to aspell, please indulge me in putting in my INR 0.02.

To my mind, firstly, aspell is a mature project (for my
money, *the* open-source spell-checking solution) run almost
entirely through Kevin as the maintainer. In such a scenario, IMHO,
any move to a DVCS would need strong arguments in favour of such a
move from proponents of that. As there are not many contributors to
aspell, what exactly is the benefit of a DVCS?

Secondly, my personal preference for a DVCS. should such a move be
made, would be for Mercurial in preference to git, though that is
very likely a personal bias from familiarity with Mercurial over
git. Nevertheless, it would be good to hear arguments in favour of
one over the other.

Regards,
Gora