Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 07:02:16 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy <peter@rulingia.com> To: Erich Dollansky <erichfreebsdlist@ovitrap.com> Cc: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net>, Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com>, Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Removing CVS from HEAD Message-ID: <20120910210216.GA50918@server.rulingia.com> In-Reply-To: <20120910183638.2adcb9f3@X220.ovitrap.com> References: <504BE12A.50907@shatow.net> <9A528A3C-40F1-4599-ACAB-EF306033A4F2@bsdimp.com> <86pq5vtj42.fsf@ds4.des.no> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1209091628400.13080@ai.fobar.qr> <CAF6rxgnN6GL38o=7LHnGLR-copo=FCpDObxu4SR5PK9yzMNemA@mail.gmail.com> <20120910070331.3fe2900c@X220.ovitrap.com> <504D3002.5040308@dougbarton.us> <20120910075903.10ec8351@X220.ovitrap.com> <20120910101711.GA2511@server.rulingia.com> <20120910183638.2adcb9f3@X220.ovitrap.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--envbJBWh7q8WU6mo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2012-Sep-10 18:36:38 +0700, Erich Dollansky <erichfreebsdlist@ovitrap.co= m> wrote: >I would call a typical user a person who reads this: > >http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/updating-upgradi= ng.html OK. That is a valid concern but does not directly affect the presence or absence of CVS in base. Yes, the handbook does need to be updated to discuss SVN but having CVS is base is not going to help someone who is trying to update to 9.1-RELEASE or 10.0-RELEASE by following the anonymous CVS instructions in the handbook - the tags do not exist. In this respect, removing CVS could be seen as preferable because the process will fail quicker so the person wastes less effort. I have just done a quick check across doc, ports and src and found the following hits for /cvs/i: lines files 18076 1921 doc 6649 1818 ports 21390 790 src 46115 4529 total Based on a quick scan, the majority of these can be ignored but a non-trivial number are currently out of date and need updating. Unfortunately, someone=E2=84=A2 needs to manually work through all the hits and work out updates where appropriate. >The handbook is not a technical reason. Yes. The user base who just >follows the handbook is also no technical reason. The handbook is in error for 9.1-RELEASE and later. Having CVS in base is not going to help users here. >I know this when considering just this thread. There is a second one >saying that the support using CVS for the ports will be stopped. That thread states that you will not be able to update the ports tree using CVS. The CVS port within the ports tree will remain. >Again, when a user followed strictly the the handbook, the user did not >even hear yet from subversion. I don't see anything in your postings that directly justify the retention of CVS in base. Rather, you appear to be suggesting that the FreeBSD Project has too quickly deprecated using CVS to update FreeBSD because the documentation and infrastrucure to support SVN are inadequate. I agree that the announcements were made with very little (if any) prior discussion and the documentation needs updating but that is not what this thread is discussing. If you believe that re@ or portmgr@ have prematurely stopped supporting CVS, please start a separate thread to discuss that. Should a decision be made to extend the use of CVS to update FreeBSD then that will obviously affect any decision to remove CVS from base. --=20 Peter Jeremy --envbJBWh7q8WU6mo Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlBOVVgACgkQ/opHv/APuIcXpwCgrRSnNxG/mrjoKPIgiicQ/w0P sX4An27CSpgxKgLieLPhN/9JFVQNqq7I =jljU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --envbJBWh7q8WU6mo--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120910210216.GA50918>