At 03:39 PM 2002/03/09 -0500, Larry Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Terrence Enger writes: >> >> Is this the best forum for proposing a port of cvs to OS/400 (a.k.a. >> AS/400, a.k.a. iseries)? > >"Proposing" in what sense? Are you proposing to do the work, or are you >proposing that someone else do the work? This is a good form for >getting input from CVS users, [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a better forum for >getting input from developers. > >-Larry Jones > [sig & list footer snipped]
Larry, I propose, first of all, some questions. (*) What does it mean? Using an existing distribution of cvs executing on Win95, I have had some success (very small test, no observed problems) controlling ASCII source in the hierarchichal part of the IFS of OS/400. But I can see value in using cvs to control a wider variety of stuff on the 400, ordered by what I would deem to be descending value: source physical file members (there are *lots* of those in the world), EBCDIC files, database files. Others with better imaginations than I can extend the list. (*) How much of this change can the main line of development tolerate? I note for example, your discussion "multiplatform sofware desing problem" on bug-cvs with Dimitry Naldaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, where you take a position against having cvs do code conversions. I can imagine that much--but not all--of the necessary code would be segreated into a platform-specific subdirectory. In my limited study of the code, I see platform-specific files mapping one function to different facilities of the platform but no example of one platform providing more functionality than another. Is there any case where you would like to exploit the particular demands or capabilities of a particular platform? Two special cases could make a pattern; one special case would likely just make a mess. (*) What machines should execute what parts of cvs? My own prejudice favours allowing the programs to execute on OS/400, but other arrangements are possible. (You then might choose not to call it a "port", of course.) You ask whether I am proposing the work for myself to do or for somebody else. Let me answer with an absolute, definite "maybe". Some subordinate points ... (*) I have been hacking around on the 400 with the source from version 1.11.1p1. It is clear to me that I have a lot to learn. It is *not* clear that I can learn what is required within the limitations of my interest (which is itself subject to preemption by paying customers, among other things). My background includes much work using OS/400, some work in C, but no previous work joining the two areas. (*) How much work are we looking at, and over what length of time? So far, each problem I hack around reveals more problems ahead of me. Neither this or my (lack of) experience with ports like this gives a basis for estimation. I suspect that previous ports between flavours of *nix might provide a poor lower bound on the effort required. The ports to Windows might give a better lower bound, if I knew how much work they involved. But cvs on Win95 omits server functionality, and the developers of cvs on WinNT--if I interpret the introductory web page correctly--have forked off completely from the main line of cvs development. I had a prejudice in favour of this proposed port when I started writing, but I fail even to convince myself. In short, I shall probably continue hacking around while I feel I am learning something and making a little "progress". Whether this merits anyone else's interest is debatable. Any thoughts, Larry? Anyone? Terry. _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs