From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 24 20:12:22 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05C311065672; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 20:12:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yanegomi@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ww0-f50.google.com (mail-ww0-f50.google.com [74.125.82.50]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64EAF8FC15; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 20:12:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wwf26 with SMTP id 26so4293635wwf.31 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 12:12:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=8pEQk+U6EAV+d/xcNgioUbCZLa/vXBLNvizwMg2z6qU=; b=bMSWf1p3jZIFG2k1lVzcn1lm2cGhKLdkrEbHEZZ1KM/n/5f12+luRQciQ4gA/Q+8ln ZfELWxwu3VppujvIJgSh73FzW1ECY9tya0O6AGTgWbvXlaG1I5bwieEew+Lh0rmbvp6J v444cF+jYaoiITg9a+16hvGuqZNy7UzljukcQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=iWT7Ge5IstxEzeXrFDj7MhT2zFTasj9g9ABkTTdCew4wOQ8inp3wDGBs5WR0ypC3UW by/Y3gCiC+1mhGXHun7hgyB4n7E2JG8Ro9ks1hJdwdTg829J5SCoftFTmu6ptw7BBHsS ejcKT+AyEB0MykQLKRk8IhqlEbKATHK6Qps3c= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.191.215 with SMTP id g65mr2870960wen.16.1295899939814; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 12:12:19 -0800 (PST) Sender: yanegomi@gmail.com Received: by 10.216.254.226 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 12:12:19 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20110124194830.GA70207@night.db.net> References: <20110124183102.GB68940@night.db.net> <20110124194830.GA70207@night.db.net> Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 12:12:19 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: L8S4j6933ZQqhmDmEW-bv-SlX0M Message-ID: From: Garrett Cooper To: Diane Bruce Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Ivan Voras Subject: Re: Why not give git a try? (was "Re: [head tinderbox] failure on amd64/amd64") X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 20:12:22 -0000 On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Diane Bruce wrote: > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 08:02:37PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote: >> On 24 January 2011 19:31, Diane Bruce 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. But we don't compile CVS, SVN, etc into our sources. I thought that was the whole point of doing the gcc -> clang (and friends) conversion, not that the GPL is an undesirable license. Maybe I was missing something about the whole textproc stuff being replaced though (groff, etc) with NetBSD equivalents *shrugs*. Given that this is getting more philosophical than technical, maybe we should move the discussion elsewhere (i.e. not hackers@)? > Perhaps a point to consider. Thanks! -Garrett