> CVS is really a "must". [... lots of sound points ...] I agree. But we're behind a firewall. So the problem is not so much setting up the software but getting the necessary privileges. Five months is really not that much when cutting through red tape.
> > Even when a CVS server is finally established, at least for the > > foreseable future, it will be a mirror (because we're using > > Perforce internally). > What's that, closed source ? We just want to have the best access to the source server. Anything accessed through a WAN is simply too unreliable for our core development. At the moment, it is a tiny bit 'closed', because we're only publishing the stable branch, not the development branch. This will change when (not if!) we export to CVS. [... comments about the contribution process ...] 1. SAP controls the feature set. So it is very doubtful that we would grant anyone write access anytime soon 2. For small patches, the mailing list seems adequate to me. For larger changes, some discussions are in order anyway. The actual sending of source code could take various forms. > > Using 'configure' is definitely a priority, changing to 'make' much > less so. > > That's sounds not good, because it points IMHO in the relly wrong > direction. First we tackle the necessities (configure, feature based #define). Then we can have a discussion if (not when!) and how we're changing our build environment. Daniel Dittmar -- Daniel Dittmar [EMAIL PROTECTED] SAP DB, SAP Labs Berlin http://www.sapdb.org/
