First, I'd like to address some misinformation. The use of Github itself was never an issue. It was how the original movement of the sources to Github was executed, and why, that created tension. Github is just a tool and it is a better choice for source control, at least in the short term, for several reasons:
- Rich REST API: Good for IDE and tooling integration and will allow some cool workflows which can [empower contributors][2].
- Known quantity: Developers are very familiar with Github and its workflows. It's easy for developers to interact with us by forking, making modifications, and submitting pull requests.
- Git repositories are available over HTTPS which makes collaboration at larger organizations easier.
- SVN interoperability: There are still many developers who are comfortable with their SVN tool chain and Github makes working with Git and SVN simultaneously a possibility
We proposed using Github on the Hudson list, and in short order agreement was reached and the move was initiated. Winston did the infrastructure work last night to push the [sources for Hudson over to Github][1]. It was really that Simple. It's amazing how smoothly things go when you clearly communicate your intentions to all stakeholders. We hope to keep improving the infrastructure for Hudson so if you're interested please join the Hudson Dev list!
You can also keep track of [Hudson developments by following us on Twitter!][3]
[1]: https://github.com/hudson/hudson
[2]: http://www.sonatype.com/~jvanzyl/EmpoweringUserWorkflow.png
[3]: http://twitter.com/hudsonci
