Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 14:48:30 -0500 From: Diane Bruce <db@db.net> To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Diane Bruce <db@db.net> Subject: Re: Why not give git a try? (was "Re: [head tinderbox] failure on amd64/amd64") Message-ID: <20110124194830.GA70207@night.db.net> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikXs39MQ4kvM4=thoANn596zTGSB=PfTQ545Fon@mail.gmail.com> References: <AANLkTi=-VsVpXH-549UNuHcNZfBH_YHrN-9JBpgWh4A8@mail.gmail.com> <ihjv30$rmd$1@dough.gmane.org> <20110124183102.GB68940@night.db.net> <AANLkTikXs39MQ4kvM4=thoANn596zTGSB=PfTQ545Fon@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 08:02:37PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote: > On 24 January 2011 19:31, Diane Bruce <db@db.net> wrote: > > > As long as it is not GPL. > > Unless there's a missing smiley in that sentence there, it is a tough IRL I'm known to be very dry humoured, I am deadly in e-mail or IRC. > requirement. Of the major SCMs, only Subversion is non-GPL-ed (even QED > CVS is...). CVS is/was dual licenced. There is also the work openbsd started with CVS sometime ago. Given the work that is being done on clang/llvm to get a non GPL compiler into the tree, perhaps efforts would be better spent on finding SCMs that were also non GPL. There certainly would not be a chance of putting mercurial or git into base for example. Perhaps a point to consider. - Diane -- - db@FreeBSD.org db@db.net http://www.db.net/~db
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110124194830.GA70207>