View source for Why VistA development does not use sourceforge

It's fine to use Sourceforge if a certain project wants to use
Sourceforge - they support multiple [[SCM~|SCM]]s including Bazaar (the current
list is Subversion, Git, Mercurial, Bazaar, and CVS) - although I
personally feel that Launchpad.net provides tighter integration with the
[[SCM~|SCM]] and has better tools around requirements (Blueprints), translations,
end-user support (Answers), and code review.

What's more important is the use of a modern, distributed source control
system vs. a centralized one.  I've already posted at length about the
advantages of doing this (and apparently my post has been re-posted
several times already ;) ).

If you really want to use a centralized system, who would host it?
Sourceforge, ok, but what group would control the repository?  How would
that group vet contributions?  Or contributors?  What gives them
authority over anyone else?  How would they manage derivatives?


[http://vistaexpertise.blogspot.com/2009/07/point-3-vista-requires-many-authorities.html As Rick Marshall points out], VISTA Requires Many Authorities, Not
One.  And distributed revision control is the best way to achieve that.
There's a reason why the really big projects like Linux (git), GNOME
(git), MySQL (bzr), Ubuntu (bzr), Mozilla (hg), Xen (hg) are either
using distributed systems or are moving in that direction.





For now it is enough to say that [[VistA Version Control is Hard]]
[[Category:FAQ]]