Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 10:38:27 +0200 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: isofs/cd9660 -> relocate to fs/isofs/cd9660? Message-ID: <20060929103827.wpuy6ai3484o8kko@webmail.leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <451CA64D.3050703@samsco.org> References: <451ADC21.50206@centtech.com> <451AE27F.3010506@samsco.org> <200609271727.29775.jhb@freebsd.org> <20060928082651.b6xp2ayu9wg40wok@webmail.leidinger.net> <451CA64D.3050703@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> (from Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:51:25 -0600= ): > Moves in CVS are relatively easy too, it's just that they can only > be performed by a special group of people, and that special group > rarely responds to requests. So, it's a policy problem, not a > technology problem. I would imagine than any new VCS that the project > adopts would have similar policies in place, and moves will still be > impossible. ATM we get the repo copy when we request one. There's no approval =20 process I'm aware of. So I expect a lot of bikeshed discussions about =20 the right layout if someone moves parts of the tree. But the problem =20 you mentioned above is not a policy problem, it's a technical problem: =20 CVS has no official way to move while keeping the history. Because of =20 this we have to cheat. Cheating can harm the repo, so we only allow a =20 subset of the people to cheat. The policy we have ATM is the result of =20 a technical limitation, not a political decission in the first place. Bye, Alexander. --=20 Don't expect people to keep in step-- it's hard enough just staying in line. http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID =3D B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID =3D 72077137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060929103827.wpuy6ai3484o8kko>