On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 09:40:09PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >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...
I suppose we could just stay with CVS while everyone else moves to git. If the repository is splitting (which I think it should have done long ago) then it won't matter what we use except that updating a single sandbox will be a little tricky. cgf
