From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 11 16:33:51 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 241DFC30 for ; Mon, 11 May 2015 16:33:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from theravensnest.org (theraven.freebsd.your.org [216.14.102.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "cloud.theravensnest.org", Issuer "StartCom Class 1 Primary Intermediate Server CA" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7FA21A27 for ; Mon, 11 May 2015 16:33:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dhcp-172-17-153-170.eduroam.wireless.private.cam.ac.uk (global-1-26.nat.csx.cam.ac.uk [131.111.184.26]) (authenticated bits=0) by theravensnest.org (8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTPSA id t4BGXZwr018733 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 11 May 2015 16:33:36 GMT (envelope-from theraven@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: theravensnest.org: Host global-1-26.nat.csx.cam.ac.uk [131.111.184.26] claimed to be dhcp-172-17-153-170.eduroam.wireless.private.cam.ac.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\)) Subject: Re: What to do about RCS/OpenRCS From: David Chisnall In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 17:33:30 +0100 Cc: freebsd-current Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <4AA6F972-0684-4B20-8FCC-9B41B58F85D7@FreeBSD.org> References: <3137063.YOSa6Au8Xi@ralph.baldwin.cx> <554D1DD5.5080106@FreeBSD.org> <554E2221.1040105@FreeBSD.org> <20150511093100.GC53149@e-new.0x20.net> <20150511161049.GA89855@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20150511162121.GA89954@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> To: Jos Backus X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 16:33:51 -0000 On 11 May 2015, at 17:27, Jos Backus wrote: >=20 > I didn't miss anything. My point is that debating to update one piece = of > obsolete software with another is silly, and that FreeBSD should try = to > move forward in this area. But that's hard, as your response = indicates. Steve is correct, and you are missing the point. Fossil, Git, = Mercurial, and so on are all available as packages. No one is = suggesting using RCS in preference to any of them. =20 Deleting RCS from the base system would be nice, but unfortunately we = can=E2=80=99t because of scripts that depend on some components of RCS. = Replacing these with the OpenRCS equivalents (if they work) would allow = us to remove a GPL=E2=80=99d piece of code from the base system. As = long as this doesn=E2=80=99t come with a functionality regression, this = would be a nice thing to do. Replacing RCS in the base system with Fossil solves no problems that = actually exist. It does not allow the scripts that rely on RCS to = continue to work and it does not make Fossil easier to use (would you = really want to stick with the one in the base system for the entire = lifetime of a major release, rather than use the packaged one?). It = would only make sense if we were to move FreeBSD development to Fossil = and currently there are a few showstoppers in Fossil that prevent this. > This is the last I'll say about this, because it appears the community > isn't ready. Have fun with your ancient version control while Linux > continues to grow in market share. :-( And now you=E2=80=99re moving beyond missing the point and just = trolling. David