Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 16:39:02 -0400 From: Garance A Drosehn <gad@FreeBSD.org> To: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Removing CVS from HEAD Message-ID: <504E4FE6.1020703@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CAF6rxgnZGjzm230sZXVXxmE7wPowF_BZqbwRjdvz8oV-03gS=A@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAF6rxgnZGjzm230sZXVXxmE7wPowF_BZqbwRjdvz8oV-03gS=A@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 9/8/12 6:09 PM, Eitan Adler wrote: > Hi all, > > CVS is obsolete. Virtually everyone that uses a version control system > chooses git, mercurial, subversion, etc. FreeBSD has finally migrated > from CVS for all of the repositories [2]. The ports management team > has announced the end of CVS support in six months time (the end of > February 2013). The documentation project does not export subversion > to CVS. The source repository will eventually cease support of CVS as > well. > > As such I propose that we treat CVS as deprecated in 9.x and remove > CVS from HEAD [0]. > > There is already a port devel/cvs which uses a virtually identical > copy of the CVS sources in HEAD as of today. > > [0] http://people.freebsd.org/~eadler/files/svn-remove-cvs-from-base.diff > [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/freebsd-ports@freebsd.org/msg44029.html > [2] projcvs does not count > I agree that removing gnu-licensed code from the base system is a good idea. I do still use CVS for a number of projects, and I also do think there is an advantage for FreeBSD being slow and deliberate when it comes to removing components from the base system. My own vote is that CVS remains part of the base system (in one form or another) for release-10. I think that removing CVS is a significant enough change that we'll have to make a big deal about removing it, and I'd rather advertise Release-10 for what it does do, instead of what it removes. However, I think we should do something with Release-10 so that we can painlessly remove CVS for Release-11. I don't know how flexible the new bsdinstaller is, but can we have it so the *port* of CVS is in the default install images? Something so people see that it is no longer part of the base system, but will see it right there in front of them at install time if they need it. Baring that, perhaps leave CVS in the base system for release-10, but rename it to gcvs. Again, this gives an easy solution to anyone who is suprised that the standard CVS is leaving the base system, but also puts them on pretty explicit notice that CVS will completely disappear in Release-11. These are just a few ideas I had which I didn't see mentioned in this thread. I have no problem with CVS becoming ports-only, but I do like making a gradual transition for changes like this. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?504E4FE6.1020703>