This is slightly off topic, but with recent (and future ;) ) Git discussions, hopefully not too off topic... If Boost were to adopt Git, I believe Gitolite (https://github.com/sitaramc/gitolite, http://sitaramc.github.com/gitolite/ -- docs) or something similar would need to be used which provides some centralization features. Maybe github? Gerrit (http://code.google.com/p/gerrit/) is primarily a code review tool, though provides some centralized support. git flow (https://github.com/nvie/gitflow) has some nice wrappers for branch management. This looks especially appealing for gently introducing people to git. It provides structure and reduces the number of commands. My question is what the workflow, tools, and experience people have with combining all of these tools. I think this community will need something along these lines if it is to transition to Git anyway, so maybe this will get that part of the discussion started. ---- Just to keep the discussion on git going... In my "brain storming" world, there is the central boost repo (which currently exists), I clone it. (When can we start submitting to github? :) ) I use git flow locally for my own branch management. This allows me to work on multiple features independently. When a feature is completed locally, I send the patch (possibly via gerrit ) and that patch sits in the maintainers review queue. If accepted, the patch is applied and merged for the next release. Largely, I believe this is what exists right now. Admittedly, I've only ever submitted one patch to Boost. That was an email directly to the library author. What I want to understand is, if such tools were adopted, would it lower the burden on library maintainers enough to justify the change? Again, my perception of the way things currently are vs could be with git: centralized subversion server. centralized git server (gitolite?) svn checkout trunk git clone developer Use whatever local strategy for development use git flow + whatever local strategy for development create patch and attach to TRAC ticket git push to gerrit server (for instance) poke people on mailing list about patches (poke people on mailing list about pending reviews and such) maintainer applies patch and pushes to server An approved patch gets pushed to centralized server. * Where would build-bot/Jenkins interact in this process? It seems that there are a few places...1) Want to be able to test local branch during development, 2) then test during the patch review and approve process, and 3) finally test on the integrated branch. * Would the "better" localized development tools (git + git flow + more direct patch submission) facilitate more participation in the community over the current method? (my guess is not much, though the people that do contribute might appreciate the improvements. And some would consider them not improvements and stop contributing? * Would the review process save the maintainer's enough time and effort that they're more able to process more patches on a regular basis?