On 17 Apr 2000, at 14:39, Sean Cavanaugh wrote:
> In what sense is it active? I've been enlisted in it for quite some time and
>haven't seen a single serious commit in a month. The activity has been getting
>slower and slower as time goes on. Looking at the cvs diff since 1.10.8, it looks
>like you more or less the only one left doing
anything with it.
> [SNIP]
>
> I also don't see my decision really as fragmentation at all, at the very least it
>might get the people who apparently control the existing CVS to wake up, and do
>something with it.
> The worst case I see realistically with my project over the next few months, is
>that all the various patches floating around the net, many of which are good and
>useful, can be accessible to a wider audience and in a centralized place, get
>backed-up automatically by the folks running
sourceforge, and perhaps someday get merged into the real CVS. This method also
solves getting the various patches working together, integrated, and tested, so the
redundancy in work of people running multiple patches on their local site is
eliminated.
> The OTHER worst case is that the 'real' CVS continues the way it is going and
>just dies off, and what I've got becomes at the very least a support area for fixing
>bugs and getting minor features written. By then it will either get real
>development, or eventually get replaced with a next
generation open-source source management tool, which is inevitably going to happen
someday.
>
> Right now we have ignored emails, and several documented aliases of which have
>turned into blackholes, which both translate into ignored patches. This mailing list
>lags 90 minutes every time I post to it which really hurts its usefulness. I'm sure
>that can get fixed with some
administrative effort, but its beyond my control.
>
> I love the program, I've been using it for quite a few years. I just have a
>giant itch to scratch and nowhere to go, as do a few others. I actually plan on real
>CVS becoming active again. I plan to only take patches based against 1.10.8 and any
>future official CVS releases, which will
help quite a bit in getting them back-ported over in the real CVS project if it ever
happens. If that doesn't happen, well then RCVS becomes the 'real deal'. win-win if
you ask me, the GPL is magic like that :)
>
>
Sean,
I cannot find anything to disagree with in your sentiments. I too have been frustrated
by the lack
of 'movement' of CVS.
I was also disappointed with the buy-out of Cyclic by SourceGear, who revamped the
website
(making it look prettier but seem to have less information (or at least it was harder
to navigate).
And in turn now bought by OpenAvenue who apart from two messages to this mailing list
and the press
release on their website (only pointed to by SourceGear's site) have been deafiningly
silent on the
subject.
I can only presume, by the way, that SourceGear bought Cyclic (and thus CVS --
sort-of) because of
some plans to do with CodeCatalog. But I get the impression that OpenAvenue are mainly
interested
in CodeCatalog. I note that CVS is not listed as one of the projects hosted at
'LinuxAvenue.com'
Hey, wait a minute, I've just noticed that they mention cvs on their oh-so-pretty
image map of
the OpenAvenue village. Clicking on the 'Cyclic.com -- Home of CVS' signpost (twice)
takes you
to... SourceGear.com!
That's gotta be progress ;-)
Enough sarcasm, back to the regular program...
Mike
--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Mike Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
work: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Web: http://www.ampersoft.co.uk
PGP public key at http://www.ampersoft.co.uk/mike/mike.html
