Many Emacs contributors are already using Git and simply publishing everything in Github. Most of the things in my .emacs comes from Github. Simply they're not part of the core Emacs.
I think the issue is not only bzr vs Git. It's also, if I understand things correctly, the super restrictive license that the core Emacs has, making every developer sign papers and send them (by snailmail!? or are scans allowed!?)... And if you several other contributors helping you, you must have them all sign these papers.
I've seen at least one prolific .el Emacs author (I think the mulled/multi-line-edit author) complain about that: saying that out of 10 people who helped him he managed to have nine of them sign the papers and sent them to him and couldn't contact the last one...
And eventually he simply decided to abandon getting all the signatures and went it's own way (i.e. Github / non-core Emacs, like many do).
I'm not well versed in licenses / GPL things but I'm a long time Emacs users and I'm definitely seeing change: now most of the newer (and great) .el files I add to my Emacs are coming from Github.
I think the issue is not only bzr vs Git. It's also, if I understand things correctly, the super restrictive license that the core Emacs has, making every developer sign papers and send them (by snailmail!? or are scans allowed!?)... And if you several other contributors helping you, you must have them all sign these papers.
I've seen at least one prolific .el Emacs author (I think the mulled/multi-line-edit author) complain about that: saying that out of 10 people who helped him he managed to have nine of them sign the papers and sent them to him and couldn't contact the last one...
And eventually he simply decided to abandon getting all the signatures and went it's own way (i.e. Github / non-core Emacs, like many do).
I'm not well versed in licenses / GPL things but I'm a long time Emacs users and I'm definitely seeing change: now most of the newer (and great) .el files I add to my Emacs are coming from Github.