Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 21:30:14 -0800 From: Doug Hardie <bc979@lafn.org> To: FreeBSD <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Does / Is anyone maintaining CVS for FreeBSD? Message-ID: <401FC04D-4A10-490B-BE89-D9FBE4C99583@lafn.org> In-Reply-To: <6794891ed487f426d2c5d0108648f1e0.authenticated@ultimatedns.net> References: <50E1D012.1040004@missouri.edu> <20121231175808.GA1399@glenbarber.us> <6817fb4c15659b194cc658b1dfa58a31.authenticated@ultimatedns.net> <CADLo83-RtuRE58HORn8ocqRVtcF3ZANJoHh1D8TO=aucwywbQw@mail.gmail.com> <f7a783bba9425aeaf67d94056b49f272.authenticated@ultimatedns.net> <148920333.20121231235441@takeda.tk> <CAF6rxgk62bugOyUz0BFTpk_H6c30ohF0n6p79Q%2B5hZwNB3QcjQ@mail.gmail.com> <50E3444D.1060307@mu.org> <CAF6rxgnme9kdocet3UzXYas6MMDP1rKTJjdDo_AULvs-LM2pCQ@mail.gmail.com> <6794891ed487f426d2c5d0108648f1e0.authenticated@ultimatedns.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1 January 2013, at 21:16, Chris H wrote: >> On 1 January 2013 15:17, Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> wrote: >>> On 1/1/13 6:55 AM, Eitan Adler wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> On 1 January 2013 02:54, Derek Kulinski <takeda@takeda.tk> wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>> That said I would totally understand you being upset if FreeBSD = would >>>>> decide to switch to git, since despite its benefits that is a huge >>>>> change, and would definitely be hard for people to adjust. >>>>=20 >>>> Just In Case: >>>>=20 >>>> FreeBSD has no plans to switch to get in either the short or long >>>> term. We will however offer git repositories and first-class = cousins >>>> via git.freebsd.org and github. >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>> Are you sure? Most of the diffs developers have been handing me = lately are >>> of the form a/path b/path so I think they are mostly using git = behind the >>> scenes. >>=20 >> Yes. I use git behind the scenes as well. However, so far as I am >> aware, there are no plans in either the short or long terms to >> *convert upstream* to git. >=20 > Thank God! I'd hate to think that after unwinding years accumulated > CVS process, to rewind it for SVN, only to have to do it again for = GIT, > just seems a bit masochistic. Is the cvs code going away? I ask because I maintain a number of local = CVS repositories of code for which I am the only developer/maintainer. = I also use grep on the repositories to find sections of code previously = created and removed for future use. I can't bill my clients for = conversion to SVN so that cost I would have to eat. I am not = particularly thrilled about having to do so. I don't need most of the = CVS features. About all I do is check in. Occasionally I botch up a = module enough that I delete it and recover it from CVS. I don't use = branches or tags.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?401FC04D-4A10-490B-BE89-D9FBE4C99583>