On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 02:22:26PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 13:06:49 +0200, "Steinar H. Gunderson"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I'd love to see people migrating to Arch
>
> Compared to SVN from the view of somebody who is acquainted with CVS,
> arch sucks badly. I tend to
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 07:01:37PM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote:
>> On Saturday 20 August 2005 02:20 pm, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> > How does their extensive use of it explain why they would reimplement
>> > it?
>>
>> Is there anyone who's used CV
Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Saturday 20 August 2005 02:20 pm, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> How does their extensive use of it explain why they would reimplement
>> it?
>
> Is there anyone who's used CVS extensively and HASN'T thought about
> reimplementing it?
Sure. Me, f
Daniel Stone wrote:
> vim! emacs!
And my cats looked out to see who was calling them... :)
--
.''`. Follow the white Rabbit - Ranty (and Lewis Carroll)
: :' :
`. `'Proudly running Debian GNU/Linux (Sid 2.6.11 Ext3)
`- www.amayita.com www.malapecora.com www.ch
On 8/21/05, Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm quite confident that there will be an upgrade path from Arch archives to
> bzr archives. Canonical, amongst other people, have too much invested in
> Arch to just let that history fester. As for hct, I understand it is a
> wrapper fronte
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 07:01:37PM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> On Saturday 20 August 2005 02:20 pm, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > How does their extensive use of it explain why they would reimplement
> > it?
>
> Is there anyone who's used CVS extensively and HASN'T thought about
> reimpleme
On Saturday 20 August 2005 02:20 pm, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> How does their extensive use of it explain why they would reimplement
> it?
Is there anyone who's used CVS extensively and HASN'T thought about
reimplementing it?
Daniel
--
/--- Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECT
On Sat, 2005-08-20 at 14:20 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 07:31:38PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> >> > > most popular open source revision control software.
> >> >
> >> > And among the most horrib
also sprach Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.08.21.0306 +0200]:
> Uhm, CVS implements RCS, but exposes a different interface.
I don't think this is accurate. CVS uses RCS internally, but
provides its own implementation in case $RCSBIN/$PATH don't contain
the RCS binaries. It does not adver
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 09:11:20PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 10:05:43PM +1200, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> > On 8/19/05, Steinar H. Gunderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I'd love to see people migrating to Arch
> >
> > Being a long-time Arch user, let me tell you tha
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 10:05:43PM +1200, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> On 8/19/05, Steinar H. Gunderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'd love to see people migrating to Arch
>
> Being a long-time Arch user, let me tell you that Arch has been
> orphaned upstream.
Correction: tla, an Arch frontend, h
On 8/19/05, Steinar H. Gunderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd love to see people migrating to Arch
Being a long-time Arch user, let me tell you that Arch has been
orphaned upstream. Currently baz is the only version being developed,
and it's unclear for how long, as Canonical has their eyes on
* Peter Samuelson:
> [Romain Francoise]
>> Perhaps not. These days RCS isn't really used as a revision control
>> system but as a component in a variety of applications: some are
>> related to revision control, some are not (wiki engines, etc). We
>> don't keep it solely for interoperability.
>
Norbert Tretkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Luciano Bello wrote:
>> I really think that OpenCVS must be part of Debian.
>
> Agreed.
However, if it has interoperability problems (and they more or less
promise it will), then it must have a different command-line name.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, e
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 07:31:38PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
>> > > most popular open source revision control software.
>> >
>> > And among the most horrible ones.
>> >
>> Agreed. Why anyone would bother to reimplement an alrea
Peter Samuelson, 2005-08-20 13:50:10 +0200 :
> And we don't have multiple implementations of it in Debian, either.
> That is the *real* point.
Of course, we don't have multiple implementations of a minimal shell
aiming at POSIX compliance. Or an X server. Or a light, fast yet
configurable windo
[Romain Francoise]
> Perhaps not. These days RCS isn't really used as a revision control
> system but as a component in a variety of applications: some are
> related to revision control, some are not (wiki engines, etc). We
> don't keep it solely for interoperability.
And we don't have multiple
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 02:33:31PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> > also sprach Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.08.19.1422 +0200]:
> > > Compared to SVN from the view of somebody who is acquainted with CVS,
> > > arch sucks badly. I tend to agree wi
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Or just the example of RCS, which is probably the most to point.
Perhaps not. These days RCS isn't really used as a revision control
system but as a component in a variety of applications: some are related
to revision control, some are not (wiki engines
* Roberto C. Sanchez:
> There is a good reason that CVS development has stagnated. CVS is
> broken and there are better alternatives.
Some people say it's its rotten codebase. A rewrite from scratch
hasn't got this problem. The RCS-based file format isn't too bad and
optimizes for some common
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Alec Berryman wrote:
> It has indeed. GNU CVS has a poor security record; OpenCVS plans not
> to.
Just like with OpenSSH? Sorry, could not resist..
--j
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [E
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 02:33:31PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.08.19.1422 +0200]:
> > Compared to SVN from the view of somebody who is acquainted with CVS,
> > arch sucks badly. I tend to agree with most of the things that Florian
> > Weimer list
Stefan Hornburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> There is a really good reason to have telnet *client* on board, and that
> is accessing IMAP / SMTP etc. servers for testing purposes.
FWIW I do prefer gnutls-cli for that purpose, as it supports STARTTLS.
;-)
cu andreas
--
"See, I
Stefan Hornburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I don't think "it's not a good revision control system" is a good
>> reason to refuse the package, for exactly the same reason that Debian
>> still packages a telnet client even though everyone really should b
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 09:39:49 -0700
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Also notice that some of our services (web pages, documentation
> >> project) use CVS and will do so for a
* Luciano Bello wrote:
> I really think that OpenCVS must be part of Debian.
Agreed.
> And I will work in it, unless somebody has a
> *really_reasonable_objection*.
Go for it.
Norbert
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTE
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Also notice that some of our services (web pages, documentation
>> project) use CVS and will do so for a long time. Having a CVS server
>> available to switch to if a security issue in the c
Alec Berryman writes:
> Michael Poole on 2005-08-19 10:32:27 -0400:
>
>> OpenCVS has not yet identified any specific problem (except the GPL)
>> that the project would address.
>
> It has indeed. GNU CVS has a poor security record; OpenCVS plans not
> to.
What part of "specific" was unclear? I
Michael Poole on 2005-08-19 10:32:27 -0400:
> OpenCVS has not yet identified any specific problem (except the GPL)
> that the project would address.
It has indeed. GNU CVS has a poor security record; OpenCVS plans not
to.
It should be noted that OpenCVS has not been released, OpenBSD still
uses
Luciano Bello writes:
> On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 11:41 +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
>> So instead of preparing the package, I suggest investing the time to
>> migrate projects from CVS to SVN or bazaar instead.
>
> Beyond the description of the program (from the website), OpenCVS is
> simply another
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 11:41 +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> So instead of preparing the package, I suggest investing the time to
> migrate projects from CVS to SVN or bazaar instead.
Beyond the description of the program (from the website), OpenCVS is
simply another option at the time of implement
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 11:41:16AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> So instead of preparing the package, I suggest investing the time to
> migrate projects from CVS to SVN or bazaar instead.
I rather waste my limited time doing more useful things. Besides, you
can't compare the migration of a CVS p
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 02:22:26PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> Compared to SVN from the view of somebody who is acquainted with CVS,
> arch sucks badly. I tend to agree with most of the things that Florian
> Weimer lists on http://www.enyo.de/fw/software/arch/design-issues.html
Note that it's over
also sprach Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.08.19.1422 +0200]:
> Compared to SVN from the view of somebody who is acquainted with CVS,
> arch sucks badly. I tend to agree with most of the things that Florian
> Weimer lists on http://www.enyo.de/fw/software/arch/design-issues.html
Looking over
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 02:33:31PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.08.19.1422 +0200]:
> > Compared to SVN from the view of somebody who is acquainted with CVS,
> > arch sucks badly. I tend to agree with most of the things that Florian
> > Weimer list
also sprach Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.08.19.1422 +0200]:
> Compared to SVN from the view of somebody who is acquainted with CVS,
> arch sucks badly. I tend to agree with most of the things that Florian
> Weimer lists on http://www.enyo.de/fw/software/arch/design-issues.html
I won't go t
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 13:06:49 +0200, "Steinar H. Gunderson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'd love to see people migrating to Arch
Compared to SVN from the view of somebody who is acquainted with CVS,
arch sucks badly. I tend to agree with most of the things that Florian
Weimer lists on http://www.en
Le Ven 19 Août 2005 11:36, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña a écrit :
> Also notice that some of our services (web pages, documentation
> project) use CVS and will do so for a long time. Having a CVS server
> available to switch to if a security issue in the current standard
> CVS server is found is
also sprach Steinar H. Gunderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.08.19.1306 +0200]:
> a security-related perspective), but making a more secure CVS (if
> they really manage to do that) will probably be a _lot_ easier
... it's already been done, kind of: Subversion.
--
Please do not send copies of list
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 11:41:16AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> So instead of preparing the package, I suggest investing the time to
> migrate projects from CVS to SVN or bazaar instead.
I'd love to see people migrating to Arch (and you get the added benefit of
GPG-signed commit, if you want to
* martin f krafft [Fri, 19 Aug 2005 00:54:45 +0200]:
> I oppose to this ITP for the single reason that CVS should be faded
> out and its users starved and deprived and forced towards SVN and
> bazaar! Har har har!
I don't see opencvs failing to meet any of the requirements of Policy
2.2.1, or
also sprach Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.08.19.1136
+0200]:
> Also notice that some of our services (web pages, documentation
> project) use CVS and will do so for a long time. Having a CVS
> server available to switch to if a security issue in the current
> standard CV
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 07:31:38PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> > > most popular open source revision control software.
> >
> > And among the most horrible ones.
> >
> Agreed. Why anyone would bother to reimplement an already existing free
> tool is beyond me.
For several reasons, one bei
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 06:50:47PM -0300, Luciano Bello wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> Owner: Luciano Bello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * Package name: opencvs
> Version : unknown, posible release: 1st Sep
> Upstream Author : Jean-Fran?ois Brousseau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 12:54:45AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Luciano Bello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.08.18.2350 +0200]:
> > OpenCVS is a FREE implementation of the Concurrent Versions System, the
>
> What's non-free about the current implementation?
>
I think that the original i
also sprach Luciano Bello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.08.18.2350 +0200]:
> OpenCVS is a FREE implementation of the Concurrent Versions System, the
What's non-free about the current implementation?
> most popular open source revision control software.
And among the most horrible ones.
I oppose to
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Luciano Bello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: opencvs
Version : unknown, posible release: 1st Sep
Upstream Author : Jean-François Brousseau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.opencvs.org/
* License : BSD
Descript
47 matches
Mail list logo
