Wedge

GC is basically SVN with a few nice additions though.

Yep I know

WordPress is in its own league. Because it's been around since the days when SVN was the 'cool' thing to use (as opposed to CVS), and it's been very successful ever since, they don't really need to change their work methodology. They have enough devs already to work on SVN merging issues etc.
I'm sure one can quote dozens of major projects that are still using SVN (Wedge being among them!), but more than SVN vs Git, it's more of a question about methodology really. Do we want other developers to join in and share their code? Yes we do. Do we want to keep the whole thing secure and not give everyone commit access? Yes. Because of this, it's more realistic to rely on Git (or Mercurial) than SVN. Thus, I'm spending a lot of time trying to get used to the idea that I'll have to use that annoying pseudo-social network...

Heck, if the Netscape guy gave them $100M, I'm sure they can finally get to work on *actually* integrating ways to communicate with each other and modify own's homepage..?!

Here's the thing, though: WP doesn't just make use of SVN in its own repo, it deploys an SVN repo for each plugin author, and pushing versions of plugins also works from that repo (it's the only way to publish plugins on the master site)

I don't recall them being too hot about accepting patches from outside, however their bug tracker does regularly have patches posted, and as such everything is more integrated.Here's the thing: when the time comes how likely are we going to be to accept their code as-is for inclusion?Git != Github. We can happily run our own private Git server if we want to do that, which uses all the same tools as Github does, except without the insane fake-social aspect.

I'm going to check all code as I do these days. i.e. carefully but not being too anal about it.

What would you prefer to do yourself, Pete, regarding:
- When to change our system (if ever)?
- What system to use? (SVN, Git, Mercurial, Bazaar...?)
- Where to host it? (Repohosting, Bitbucket, Google Code, Github...)

Right now I'd say Bitbucket + private Mercurial (and public later), but I have a feeling that we're going to end up going to Github, like most people... (It's nearly funny, watching all of the other sites pointing people to their most active repos, and when you click a repo whose name you've heard of, you end up with this final commit message: "Moved project to github"... Lol. It happened several times. Last one I remember is XBMC.)

Me, I prefer to go with what works.

I'm comfortable with SVN, both Git and Hg are new to me. I don't like Bazaar.

I'm not too fussy about hosting provided that there's no chance of being held hostage - I trust free repo hosting as much as I trust free web hosting, which is very little. I pay a reasonable sum to RH per month for what I get, but I could just as easily set up my own repo (done that in the past) and I'm comfortable with the options provided by RH, I wouldn't want to give any of the flexibility up that I currently have with RH.

What does RH offer that others don't...?

So, going with what works = SVN + RH, private right now, public repo later?

Meh. I don't know. I'd rather use RH to try for a dual SVN/Git repo where we do some Git testing or something.
Or perhaps we could use Github with a SVN client... (It sounds silly but they do support that.. https://github.com/blog/966-improved-subversion-client-support and https://github.com/blog/1178-collaborating-on-github-with-subversion)

Bazaar is probably the worst distributed visioning system, it's has the worst performance,  I would say Git mainly because it's feature rich (file staging is a big plus for me, easily allows me to keep one commit per chance) and is very efficient in most case when compared to SVN.

I use git-cola interface, very easy to work with and is cross platform.

Mostly it's about permissions. I can control who can write to a project, and anyone that can't, they just can't. Unlike Github where everyone can push things to a project and that puts an onus on the project leaders to review and accept patches.

There is also a vast array of facilities we actually don't use at RH but that we could should we decide we want to - we get a free wiki, free bug tracking etc.

I can certainly set up a Git repo in there.

It can be open source toohttp://repositoryhosting.com/features

So Github is not necessary.

No? Only organization members/collaborators can push to the repo. Plus you do get free wiki and bug tracking with github

That seems to have been about pull requests.

It is referring to pull requests - from the perspective of contributors, they're pushing to the project and expecting the project to take it onboard.

Nothing says 'get stuffed' than not accepting any inward contributions, but if there's no obvious way to do that, that's actually better than appearing to solicit such things without accepting them.