On Jun 4 14:48, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 08:23:11PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >Personally I'd rather keep the w32api directory in the same repository > >as Cygwin. It's much more convenient to have the latest CVS version > >always right where it's needed instead of having to update w32api on > >the build machine in some other spot. Especially when making changes > >which are then used by Cygwin right away. > > > >Having said that, I can live with having w32api in another repository. > >I just doubt that I'd like it. > > How you construct your sandbox doesn't necessarily have anything to do > with how the upstream repository is laid out. The only real downside > (and there are ways around this) is that you couldn't do a "cvs update > -d" at the top level of "winsup" and have it update everything. > > And, also, incidentally, the other thing that is being contemplated is > moving to a more modern SCM like subversion or git.
Oh no, not git, please. I'm already fighting against the Samba and syslog-ng repositories with not much success. I still don't understand why everybody is moving away from CVS. It works and checkin/update are reasonably fast. Seems like other SCMs, especially git, are just en vogue right now. Incidentally, OpenBSD is just creating their own OpenCVS... Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
