Hi kp, > The Bering-uClibc team does work intensivly with cvs: > > - Everyone shall be able to build a developement environment and the lrpS > from > cvs sources. > - contributions can be added almost automatically from every LEAF developer > via cvs > - the Bering-uClibc packages page is heavily based on cvs access. > > > We do need a working cvs being around for some more time :) looking at how much work it _might_ be (I don't know for sure, and I don't have the time to find out - if somebody else wants to have a look at it, [s]he is more than welcome to do so) it's actually worse than that. My take is that changing everything to a different CVS server (should SF pull CVS support at some point) would most likely be easier than switching to subversion. That's just my take though - switching to another CVS server is a configuration change, that's easily tested. Switching to subversion is a big unknown to me, and at this point, I neither have the time, nor much of an inclination to spend time on porting all our stuff to subversion. To me, a port would bring tons of extra work, without much of a gain. Subversion might be more stable than CVS is on SF right now (there's no debating the problems SF has had with CVS in the past), but that's the only gain I see - all the other things that subversion undoubtedly brings are not terribly high on my priorities list at this point in time, since the lack of them doesn't keep me from doing what I need to do (binary diffs, versioning of directories, renaming of files, true atomic commits are all fine features, but no killer features to _me_ at this point, given the amount of work it seems it would take to switch).
Again - if there's somebody familiar with perl, CVS and subversion, who wants to port buildtool and genpage, they're more than welcome to do so (and I'd do my best to help as much as I can). Martin P.S. In case somebody is wondering - I'm _NOT_ threatening to move away from SF and create a fork of LEAF on some other site. I'm just saying that at this point, there seems to be nobody available to do the work required to move from CVS to subversion, so migrating to another repository would seem easier than migrating to another SCM, if we are forced to make a decision. And before anybody blames CVS for the current problems, as far as I can tell, subversion would have taken as much of a hit from a filesystem corruption as CVS. I guess if there's something we can learn from this, it's not to rely on SF services without a good backup (and there's nobody to blame for that but all of us, myself included - SF never claimed to keep backups, as far as I recall). ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
