Really though if you're developing things you can just keep the repo local and only push things to a test branch instead of merging them all to master.
Personally, I use an "unstable" branch to push all commits to until I'm at least fairly certain that a script I'm working on has reached a stable point; from there, I generally merge into the master branch, create a tag, and release. This ensures that anytime someone wants to access one of my scripts (or Enelvon's, since we work as a team very often) they will always get a stable version from the standard GitHub URL for the repository -- and if they want to try an unstable version, they can explicitly select that branch.
As for the aversion to Git, I imagine a lot of it comes down to intimidation -- to be fair, Git can seem incredibly complicated at first to a lot of people; the vocabulary alone seems off-putting to many (commits, branches, stashes, refs, and so on). In addition to that, command-line interfaces can seem very intimidating in general, and most Git GUI tools don't really
ease anyone into using it. At first, it can feel like an uphill battle that just isn't worth the time and effort to learn when you can just drop text files into a folder which is synchronized via Dropbox.
Of course, the reality is that it's actually quite simple, and the benefits of using it are
vast. As a relatively brief example, my SES Console script is available on GitHub: as such, anyone can easily download the latest stable version as soon as it's released (as a
raw file), download any release they wish (at the
Releases tab), browse changes committed to the code base (via
Commits), and even view the developer documentation for it (on
GitHub Pages). And that's not even mentioning the fact that anyone can fork the repository, make changes, and submit pull requests to us for any features or bug fixes they wish to see happen. Enelvon and I started hosting all of our scripts on GitHub for
all of these reasons, and more.
But there's a bit of a problem here, too: a lot of scripters in the community still view Git as something like Dropbox -- instead of storing actual source code, they store entire projects (I've seen this too many times now).
That's not what Git is for, and the way Git works is really less-than-ideal for storing a large amount of binary data (or in RPG Maker's case, serialized Ruby data). In addition to that, storing serialized project data is also anathema to the entire point of Git (and GitHub, in particular):
it's collaboration-hostile.
Really, I'd love it if more scripters took the time to learn how to use version control, whether it's Git, Mercurial... even Subversion or something else. Unfortunately, I just don't really see it happening.
I'd like to be wrong.
