Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 01:48:04 +0000 From: Andrew Boothman <andrew@cream.org> To: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SCM options (was Re: Where is FreeBSD going?) Message-ID: <4000AB54.7030804@cream.org> In-Reply-To: <20040111000551.GC60996@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> 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]> <20040111000551.GC60996@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Peter Jeremy 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). Indeed - I was just adding to the comments about subversion by pointing out that its BSDness is a point in its favour. > 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. Except that the decision of whether our SCM was imported into src/contrib or not might be effected by its license. I mean I know there's plenty of GPLed code in there already, but adding to it might not be such a popular move. Anywho - the topic of SCM is something that rears it's head once in a while (I've really enjoyed how one post from our troll has led to conversations about just about everything :D ). I think we need to wait for subversion to hit 1.0 and then evaluate it carefully. I can't really think of a change to FreeBSD more wide-ranging than changing our SCM, and it would need buy-in from your common-or-garden CVSup user, through commiters and the core team. That's not to say that we can't change. The benefits of doing so are obvious. But we certainly don't want any nasty surprises on the way. Andrew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4000AB54.7030804>