From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 10 16:06:08 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65C4B16A4CE for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 16:06:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from server.vk2pj.dyndns.org (c211-30-75-229.belrs2.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.75.229]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1DBF43D2F for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 16:06:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from peterjeremy@optushome.com.au) Received: from server.vk2pj.dyndns.org (localhost.vk2pj.dyndns.org [127.0.0.1])i0B05p7B061388; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 11:05:51 +1100 (EST) (envelope-from peter@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org) Received: (from peter@localhost) by server.vk2pj.dyndns.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0B05pQ5061387; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 11:05:51 +1100 (EST) (envelope-from peter) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 11:05:51 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy To: Garance A Drosihn Message-ID: <20040111000551.GC60996@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> References: <20040110032731.18864.qmail@web13422.mail.yahoo.com> <40003F4C.2000107@gamersimpact.com> <200401102020.17108.peter.schuller@infidyne.com> <4000701B.40102@cream.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SCM options (was Re: Where is FreeBSD going?) X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 00:06:08 -0000 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