Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 11:47:05 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> Cc: "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Last bits of SCCS, RCS, CVS and Subversion IDs Message-ID: <CANCZdfqKYEihPgtPQWMR-GXnXDXXifThXhv_%2BG3C6S7w6snNww@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20230905160359.51C07C0@slippy.cwsent.com> References: <CANCZdfqQRQJq2TxtxwKEgtLcAe5ENOvu2_L%2BksE1pVatyKhC-Q@mail.gmail.com> <20230905160359.51C07C0@slippy.cwsent.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 10:04 AM Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> wrote: > In message < > CANCZdfqQRQJq2TxtxwKEgtLcAe5ENOvu2_L+ksE1pVatyKhC-Q@mail.gmail.com> > , Warner Losh writes: > > > > So I plan on just removing the SCCS, RCS, CVS and Subversion Ids that > > remain in the tree. Though I removed 32k $FreeBSD$ lines, there's about > 100 > > or so remaining, and a few hundred miscellaneous other IDs. I do plan on > > keeping the $NetBSD$ and $OpenBSD$ lines for now, though. > > > > Comments? > > I think the NetBSD and OpenBSD lines still serve some purpose, for two > reasons. > > 1. The OpenBSD lines still document the baseline from which a source was > obtained. > Not so much the NetBSD lines since they now use Mercurial. OpenBSD > still uses CVS. > NetBSD still uses CVS, but has a CVS->Mercurial gateway as a transition. Still, the writing is on the wall that this won't lasat forever. > 2. The remaining OpenBSD lines may reduce merge conflicts if they remain. > Yea. I think the OpenBSD and NetBSD lines are different in a third way as well: They represent the state of the upstream when we take it in, and from a 'keep deltas with upstream smaller rather than larger' perspective, it's good to retain them as well, even if we've substantially modified things since the import.... That was my initial thinking in keeping them. The reset of that thought is that the other remaining SVN / CVS / RCS / SCCS tags are from projects that no longer really have an upstream. They are defunkt now for many years (decades in all cases I'm familiar with, but I've not done a full audit to say that with certainty). They also date from a time where marking of sources and binaries was fundamentally different, and did things that we no longer do and are out of step. So there's no benefit to retaining it and some desire, at least to modernize. Warner [-- Attachment #2 --] <div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 10:04 AM Cy Schubert <<a href="mailto:Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com">Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">In message <<a href="mailto:CANCZdfqQRQJq2TxtxwKEgtLcAe5ENOvu2_L%2BksE1pVatyKhC-Q@mail.gmail.com" target="_blank">CANCZdfqQRQJq2TxtxwKEgtLcAe5ENOvu2_L+ksE1pVatyKhC-Q@mail.gmail.com</a>><br> , Warner Losh writes:<br> ><br> > So I plan on just removing the SCCS, RCS, CVS and Subversion Ids that<br> > remain in the tree. Though I removed 32k $FreeBSD$ lines, there's about 100<br> > or so remaining, and a few hundred miscellaneous other IDs. I do plan on<br> > keeping the $NetBSD$ and $OpenBSD$ lines for now, though.<br> ><br> > Comments?<br> <br> I think the NetBSD and OpenBSD lines still serve some purpose, for two reasons.<br> <br> 1. The OpenBSD lines still document the baseline from which a source was obtained.<br> Not so much the NetBSD lines since they now use Mercurial. OpenBSD still uses CVS.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>NetBSD still uses CVS, but has a CVS->Mercurial gateway as a transition. Still, the writing</div><div>is on the wall that this won't lasat forever.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> 2. The remaining OpenBSD lines may reduce merge conflicts if they remain.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yea.</div><div><br></div><div>I think the OpenBSD and NetBSD lines are different in a third way as well: They represent the</div><div>state of the upstream when we take it in, and from a 'keep deltas with upstream smaller rather</div><div>than larger' perspective, it's good to retain them as well, even if we've substantially modified</div><div>things since the import.... That was my initial thinking in keeping them.</div><div><br></div><div>The reset of that thought is that the other remaining SVN / CVS / RCS / SCCS tags are from</div><div>projects that no longer really have an upstream. They are defunkt now for many years (decades</div><div>in all cases I'm familiar with, but I've not done a full audit to say that with certainty). They also date</div><div>from a time where marking of sources and binaries was fundamentally different, and did things</div><div>that we no longer do and are out of step. So there's no benefit to retaining it and some desire, at</div><div>least to modernize.</div><div><br></div><div>Warner</div></div></div>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CANCZdfqKYEihPgtPQWMR-GXnXDXXifThXhv_%2BG3C6S7w6snNww>