Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2004 10:42:31 +0100 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 6.0 and onwards Message-ID: <20130.1099820551@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 07 Nov 2004 20:39:07 %2B1100." <20041107093907.GK79646@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20041107093907.GK79646@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au>, Peter Jeremy writes: >On Sat, 2004-Nov-06 13:22:28 +0100, Samuel Tardieu wrote: >>Wouldn't it also be a good time to reevaluate the development system? >>New free software revision control systems such as GNU Arch are now >>mature and could be used precisely for this kind of things. >> >>For those not knowing it, let me introduce GNU Arch by small examples >>of what you can do with it: >[ feature list elided ] > >What facilities are there to replicate the repository (ala CVSup or >CTM)? Publishing the repository is all very nice but doesn't help >someone who wants off-line access. Before anybody starts to even contemplate a new version control system for FreeBSD, it would be wise to study the history of "libh". If you have something in place which solves 90% of the problem and people have adjusted to it and know how it works, it will be almost impossible to replace it with something else, even if it the new replacement does solve 100% of the problem. For better or worse, we're stuck with CVS for the forseeable future and there are so many other ways to better use the huge amount of developer time it would cost to replace it. Next topic, please. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130.1099820551>