Re: SCM options (was Re: Where is FreeBSD going?)
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 09:05:50AM -0800, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote: > I think we must wait until a 1.0 version is available. > > SVN is meant to be a replacement to CVS. The projects repository is using > perforce which happens to be a good tool, so moving it to svn is probably not a > step forward IMHO ;-). No, the projects/ repository is in CVS. There's also a perforce repository that people use for development work, but it's not what Garance was talking about. Kris pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SCM options (was Re: Where is FreeBSD going?)
On Jan 11, 2004, at 5:19 PM, Garance A Drosihn wrote: At 10:00 AM + 1/11/04, Doug Rabson wrote: On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 00:05, Peter Jeremy wrote: > > I disagree. Andrew raised two issues (type of license and > port vs base location). The type of license is an input to > the decision as to which SCM to choose - BSD preferable ... Subversion has a friendly BSD-ish license but it depends heavily on Sleepycat DB which doesn't. I imagine that if we do end up using it one day, it would be best managed as a port rather than part of the base system. I just don't see many people agreeing on importing subversion+db-4.2+apache2 into src/contrib... Another way of approaching that is to say subversion is not-likely to be imported *unless* we can find an acceptable BSD-licensed database mgr to go along with it. (I do not know how much of Apache is needed. Would svn *clients* need to have apache installed, or is that only needed for machines that hold a public repository?) Subversion servers require Berkeley DB and potentially Apache if you want to use mod_dav_svn as your server. If you don't want to use mod_dav_svn you can avoid the dependency on Apache. Subversion clients require APR (the Apache Portable Runtime) and potentially Neon (a webdav client library) if you want to use mod_dav_svn as your server. In any event, I'm not convinced that importing Subversion into the tree is necessary even if you do want to use it. There's no real reason it can't just live in the ports tree as it does now. -garrett ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: SCM options (was Re: Where is FreeBSD going?)
At 10:00 AM + 1/11/04, Doug Rabson wrote: On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 00:05, Peter Jeremy wrote: > > I disagree. Andrew raised two issues (type of license and > port vs base location). The type of license is an input to > the decision as to which SCM to choose - BSD preferable ... Subversion has a friendly BSD-ish license but it depends heavily on Sleepycat DB which doesn't. I imagine that if we do end up using it one day, it would be best managed as a port rather than part of the base system. I just don't see many people agreeing on importing subversion+db-4.2+apache2 into src/contrib... Another way of approaching that is to say subversion is not-likely to be imported *unless* we can find an acceptable BSD-licensed database mgr to go along with it. (I do not know how much of Apache is needed. Would svn *clients* need to have apache installed, or is that only needed for machines that hold a public repository?) -- Garance Alistair Drosehn= [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Systems Programmer or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rensselaer Polytechnic Instituteor [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: SCM options (was Re: Where is FreeBSD going?)
--- Garance A Drosihn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 7:27 PM -0800 1/9/04, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote: > >Hi; > > > >There is a comparison here: > >http://better-scm.berlios.de/comparison/comparison.html > > > >I think there are compelling reasons to try subversion, > >but we have to wait for a 1.0 Release, and this would be > >something that should be done gradually.. for example > >moving the ports tree first. > > That's a pretty major test! Could we perhaps pick off > something smaller? The "projects" repository, for > instance? (or is that still tied to the base-system?) > > (I am very interested in subversion, but it is still > something I need to learn more about...) > I think we must wait until a 1.0 version is available. SVN is meant to be a replacement to CVS. The projects repository is using perforce which happens to be a good tool, so moving it to svn is probably not a step forward IMHO ;-). cheers, Pedro. > -- > Garance Alistair Drosehn= [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Senior Systems Programmer or [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Rensselaer Polytechnic Instituteor [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: SCM options (was Re: Where is FreeBSD going?)
On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 00:05, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 05:01:13PM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > >At 9:35 PM + 1/10/04, Andrew Boothman wrote: > >>Peter Schuller wrote: > >> > >>>Most of the noteworthy features of subversion are listed > >>>on the project front page: > >>> > >>> http://subversion.tigris.org/ > >> > >>A significant one of which is the fact that it's available > >>under a BSD-style license. Meaning that the project wouldn't > >>have to rely on more GPLed code. > >> > >>I wonder if our SCM would be brought into the base system or > >>whether it would just be left in ports? > > > >We haven't even started to *test* subversion yet, so I think > >it's a bit early to worry about this question! > > I disagree. Andrew raised two issues (type of license and port vs > base location). The type of license is an input to the decision as > to which SCM to choose - BSD would be preferable but GPL is probably > acceptable (given two potential SCMs with similar features, the BSD > licensed one would be selected in preference to the GPL one). Subversion has a friendly BSD-ish license but it depends heavily on Sleepycat DB which doesn't. I imagine that if we do end up using it one day, it would be best managed as a port rather than part of the base system. I just don't see many people agreeing on importing subversion+db-4.2+apache2 into src/contrib... ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: SCM options (was Re: Where is FreeBSD going?)
Peter Jeremy wrote: Most of the noteworthy features of subversion are listed on the project front page: http://subversion.tigris.org/ A significant one of which is the fact that it's available under a BSD-style license. Meaning that the project wouldn't have to rely on more GPLed code. I wonder if our SCM would be brought into the base system or whether it would just be left in ports? We haven't even started to *test* subversion yet, so I think it's a bit early to worry about this question! > I disagree. Andrew raised two issues (type of license and port vs base location). The type of license is an input to the decision as to which SCM to choose - BSD would be preferable but GPL is probably acceptable (given two potential SCMs with similar features, the BSD licensed one would be selected in preference to the GPL one). Indeed - I was just adding to the comments about subversion by pointing out that its BSDness is a point in its favour. The decision on how to manage the SCM is totally independent of the choice of SCM - it relates to the ease of maintenance of the SCM. There's no reason why an "in principle" decision couldn't be made now. Except that the decision of whether our SCM was imported into src/contrib or not might be effected by its license. I mean I know there's plenty of GPLed code in there already, but adding to it might not be such a popular move. Anywho - the topic of SCM is something that rears it's head once in a while (I've really enjoyed how one post from our troll has led to conversations about just about everything :D ). I think we need to wait for subversion to hit 1.0 and then evaluate it carefully. I can't really think of a change to FreeBSD more wide-ranging than changing our SCM, and it would need buy-in from your common-or-garden CVSup user, through commiters and the core team. That's not to say that we can't change. The benefits of doing so are obvious. But we certainly don't want any nasty surprises on the way. Andrew ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: SCM options (was Re: Where is FreeBSD going?)
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 05:01:13PM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote: >At 9:35 PM + 1/10/04, Andrew Boothman wrote: >>Peter Schuller wrote: >> >>>Most of the noteworthy features of subversion are listed >>>on the project front page: >>> >>> http://subversion.tigris.org/ >> >>A significant one of which is the fact that it's available >>under a BSD-style license. Meaning that the project wouldn't >>have to rely on more GPLed code. >> >>I wonder if our SCM would be brought into the base system or >>whether it would just be left in ports? > >We haven't even started to *test* subversion yet, so I think >it's a bit early to worry about this question! I disagree. Andrew raised two issues (type of license and port vs base location). The type of license is an input to the decision as to which SCM to choose - BSD would be preferable but GPL is probably acceptable (given two potential SCMs with similar features, the BSD licensed one would be selected in preference to the GPL one). The decision on how to manage the SCM is totally independent of the choice of SCM - it relates to the ease of maintenance of the SCM. There's no reason why an "in principle" decision couldn't be made now. Peter ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: SCM options (was Re: Where is FreeBSD going?)
At 9:35 PM + 1/10/04, Andrew Boothman wrote: Peter Schuller wrote: Most of the noteworthy features of subversion are listed on the project front page: http://subversion.tigris.org/ A significant one of which is the fact that it's available under a BSD-style license. Meaning that the project wouldn't have to rely on more GPLed code. I wonder if our SCM would be brought into the base system or whether it would just be left in ports? We haven't even started to *test* subversion yet, so I think it's a bit early to worry about this question! -- Garance Alistair Drosehn= [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Systems Programmer or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rensselaer Polytechnic Instituteor [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: SCM options (was Re: Where is FreeBSD going?)
Peter Schuller wrote: Most of the noteworthy features of subversion are listed on the project front page: http://subversion.tigris.org/ A significant one of which is the fact that it's available under a BSD-style license. Meaning that the project wouldn't have to rely on more GPLed code. I wonder if our SCM would be brought into the base system or whether it would just be left in ports? Andrew ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: SCM options (was Re: Where is FreeBSD going?)
At 9:05 AM -0800 1/10/04, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote: --- Garance A Drosihn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's a pretty major test! Could we perhaps pick off > something smaller? The "projects" repository, for > instance? (or is that still tied to the base-system?) SVN is meant to be a replacement to CVS. The projects repository is using perforce which happens to be a good tool, ... Ah. I did not realize it was already using Perforce. Yeah, I would not suggest making that change. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn= [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Systems Programmer or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rensselaer Polytechnic Instituteor [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: SCM options (was Re: Where is FreeBSD going?)
> I haven't been following this too closely, so forgive me if this has > been mentioned. Does Subversion support any type of transaction based > committing? Yes. Commits are atomic. Most of the noteworthy features of subversion are listed on the project front page: http://subversion.tigris.org/ -- / Peter Schuller, InfiDyne Technologies HB PGP userID: 0xE9758B7D or 'Peter Schuller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>' Key retrieval: Send an E-Mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.scode.org ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: SCM options (was Re: Where is FreeBSD going?)
Garance A Drosihn wrote: At 7:27 PM -0800 1/9/04, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote: Hi; There is a comparison here: http://better-scm.berlios.de/comparison/comparison.html I think there are compelling reasons to try subversion, but we have to wait for a 1.0 Release, and this would be something that should be done gradually.. for example moving the ports tree first. That's a pretty major test! Could we perhaps pick off something smaller? The "projects" repository, for instance? (or is that still tied to the base-system?) (I am very interested in subversion, but it is still something I need to learn more about...) I haven't been following this too closely, so forgive me if this has been mentioned. Does Subversion support any type of transaction based committing? One of the frequent problems with CVS is when someone grabs source while someone is in the middle of a large or multi-part commit. -- Ryan Sommers [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: SCM options (was Re: Where is FreeBSD going?)
At 7:27 PM -0800 1/9/04, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote: Hi; There is a comparison here: http://better-scm.berlios.de/comparison/comparison.html I think there are compelling reasons to try subversion, but we have to wait for a 1.0 Release, and this would be something that should be done gradually.. for example moving the ports tree first. That's a pretty major test! Could we perhaps pick off something smaller? The "projects" repository, for instance? (or is that still tied to the base-system?) (I am very interested in subversion, but it is still something I need to learn more about...) -- Garance Alistair Drosehn= [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Systems Programmer or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rensselaer Polytechnic Instituteor [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
SCM options (was Re: Where is FreeBSD going?)
Hi; There is a comparison here: http://better-scm.berlios.de/comparison/comparison.html I think there are compelling reasons to try subversion, but we have to wait for a 1.0 Release, and this would be something that should be done gradually.. for example moving the ports tree first. cheers, Pedro. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
