Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2012 16:07:56 -0400 From: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> Cc: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Fallout from the CVS discussion Message-ID: <CAF6rxgn3Tmt=YRjsrK0eCb9b0wPw=uH8nKTs2Th8ZjS9zO84%2Bg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-Vmo=BBgP4_eVXw7LxiFsdj2wSpAMGy4gzZybb=EiHqPFYXg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAF6rxg=qVUHe7tc9_AXgRdUtkoHOrixwNw-GsN7C7_r0FR990A@mail.gmail.com> <20120916053523.GJ37286@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <CAF6rxg=mm9OeVDX-dYC=FwnAZ-6pGjcRad=Gm9-mLx3QiPtqVQ@mail.gmail.com> <51B48339-D1FA-49CD-B582-1C58855B024E@bsdimp.com> <CAJ-Vmo=BBgP4_eVXw7LxiFsdj2wSpAMGy4gzZybb=EiHqPFYXg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 16 September 2012 15:53, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote: > * I'd like to first see a roadmap for doing this - eg, "we're adding a > NO_CVS option; CVS will become a port, you can migrate to the CVS port > with your next build/installworld"; We have WITHOUT_CVS . > * if you're that way inclined, backport the NO_CVS option (if it > doesn't exist) to -9; Already done. > * Ensure all of the stuff that uses CVS is migrated beforehand, and > publish all of that effort somewhere; This is part of my plan. > * Make sure you're doing it for reasons that aren't coming across as > "GPL free! at all costs!" This has nothing to do with the reasons I proposed to remove CVS. Please re-read my original email. The first words were "CVS is obsolete." I had *no idea* CVS was GPLed until the thread started (I thought were using a BSD licensed one). > Now, to stir up trouble, I hereby suggest that if you're going to > remove CVS because it's no longer used for FreeBSD's project stuff, we > should obviously import subversion into the base because _it_ is being > used for the FreeBSD project stuff. Please re-read the original thread. I am removing CVS because it is obsolete. CVS being used for FreeBSD project was merely a key blocker to its removal. > Think of why you're not doing that > (likely because it's already a port/package and there's just as much > inertia to introduce something to the base system as there is removing > it and making it a port) and see if that helps refocus your reasons > for and against doing things. I am not proposing introducing subversion into base because I am not willing to do the work to maintain it. If I were, that would be a different story (imho, the base should have sufficient software to download and compile itself). -- Eitan Adler
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAF6rxgn3Tmt=YRjsrK0eCb9b0wPw=uH8nKTs2Th8ZjS9zO84%2Bg>