Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 11:05:51 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> To: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SCM options (was Re: Where is FreeBSD going?) Message-ID: <20040111000551.GC60996@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <p06020456bc2623e3e15c@[128.113.24.47]> References: <20040110032731.18864.qmail@web13422.mail.yahoo.com> <p06020453bc2558823646@[128.113.24.47]> <40003F4C.2000107@gamersimpact.com> <200401102020.17108.peter.schuller@infidyne.com> <4000701B.40102@cream.org> <p06020456bc2623e3e15c@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 05:01:13PM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote: >At 9:35 PM +0000 1/10/04, Andrew Boothman wrote: >>Peter Schuller wrote: >> >>>Most of the noteworthy features of subversion are listed >>>on the project front page: >>> >>> http://subversion.tigris.org/ >> >>A significant one of which is the fact that it's available >>under a BSD-style license. Meaning that the project wouldn't >>have to rely on more GPLed code. >> >>I wonder if our SCM would be brought into the base system or >>whether it would just be left in ports? > >We haven't even started to *test* subversion yet, so I think >it's a bit early to worry about this question! I disagree. Andrew raised two issues (type of license and port vs base location). The type of license is an input to the decision as to which SCM to choose - BSD would be preferable but GPL is probably acceptable (given two potential SCMs with similar features, the BSD licensed one would be selected in preference to the GPL one). The decision on how to manage the SCM is totally independent of the choice of SCM - it relates to the ease of maintenance of the SCM. There's no reason why an "in principle" decision couldn't be made now. Peter
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040111000551.GC60996>