At 12:32 PM 9/26/00 -0400, you wrote:
> I'll respond to this and your prior mail ('[agenda] Is CVS
>required?') together. It is my opinion, and (AFAIK) the opinion of
>virtually everyone I know, and, AFAIK, the opinion of every major OSS
>project (save the linux kernel) that CVS is the proper way to handle
>distributed development. (Although, in some cases, CVS is pronounced
>'bitkeeper.') The only CVS available to me -- that I don't personally
>host -- and to the project in general, without our own box and connection
>-- is at SourceForge. The Right Way to get source for a project using CVS
>is anonymous checkout/update, which SourceForge supports. Quite frankly,
>using CVS is not so a high an entry barrier to contributing code that I'm
>worried about the coders who will be turned away.
I agree but would highly welcome a replacement for CVS. I find it such a
pain to use and I'm sure many others do to. Anyone looking for a project
that would earn you much appreciation from fellow developers, make a cvs
replacement that's easier to use for the person that hates version control
yet still retains power for those that love it... :)
>Contributing to the
>code via the patch manager can be done without a SourceForge account (it
>appears), though having one will simplify follow-up emails. In general,
>direct CVS write access both requires a SourceForge account and will only
>rarely be granted.
Agreed. The cvs write group is/should be kept really small. _Really_
small. Most people either need access to the source or just will
occassionally submit patches which can easily be done via the patch
manager. When we re-org the structure of jos, I'm going to suggest we take
a similar tact to the apache (jakarta) project with a limited "committer"
group with cvs write access, and a large "developer" group with cvs read
and patch submission to committer access.
-iain
_______________________________________________
Kernel maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://jos.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
