From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 11 13:30:43 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E1C0106564A; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:30:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@damnhippie.dyndns.org) Received: from duck.symmetricom.us (duck.symmetricom.us [206.168.13.214]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7C0F8FC16; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:30:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from damnhippie.dyndns.org (daffy.symmetricom.us [206.168.13.218]) by duck.symmetricom.us (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q8BDUZej003148; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 07:30:36 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from freebsd@damnhippie.dyndns.org) Received: from [172.22.42.240] (revolution.hippie.lan [172.22.42.240]) by damnhippie.dyndns.org (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q8BDUW8I049412; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 07:30:32 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from freebsd@damnhippie.dyndns.org) From: Ian Lepore To: Doug Barton In-Reply-To: <504ECD86.2040002@FreeBSD.org> References: <201209110027.q8B0RaEC024399@fire.js.berklix.net> <504ECD86.2040002@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 07:30:32 -0600 Message-ID: <1347370232.1137.49.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.1 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: arch@freebsd.org, "Julian H. Stacey" Subject: Re: Removing CVS from HEAD X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:30:43 -0000 On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 22:35 -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > On 09/10/2012 17:27, Julian H. Stacey wrote: > > When/if it's agreed to remove CVS from src/ to ports/ , do it > > Not in un-managed haste. Not gratuitously annoying users by > > removing CVS from src/ without due warning. > > Do you consider years from now "due warning?" Because that's how long it > is going to be before any measurable quantity of users is on 10.x. > Between now and then, every one of them who is paying any attention at > all will have moved from CVS to SVN. > > This whole argument of "zomg, users can't handle things moving to ports" > is so 20th century. > I think I'd feel better about the trend of moving things from the base to ports if cross-building ports for non-x86 platforms worked. I have no specific need for CVS in base and I think there's plenty of lead time if the process starts now for people to adjust before the 10.0 release, so don't count the above general statement as a vote against removing CVS. -- Ian