This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps@cygwin.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Seeking initial reactions: Moving setup from CVS to Subversion?


Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 12:42:28AM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
At some point in the medium-to-long-term future, I'd quite like to move the
setup code from CVS to Subversion.


Partly, that's because of all the little improvements subversion brings
over cvs, but a notable concrete benefit subversion would bring is the
ability to moves of files easily, without breaking up lines of history.
This would be of great value, because setup would benefit from refactoring
into one or more utility libraries, a core installation logic library, and
one or more user interfaces - i.e. GUI and TUI. The ability to make
subdirectories and move files into them, with ease, and without making it
hard to access historical versions is key to making this feasible.


If this is to proceed, I believe I'll need to contact the sourceware
overseers and discuss whether there would be any obstacles to setting up
subversion on sources.redhat.com .

Do you really think this would be the first time anyone has raised this issue to overseers? It has come up repeatedly.

My apologies. I had assumed that overseers would not be publicly archived. I have now done some searching, and have read the thread "switch to subversion?" started by Per Bothner. I could not find any other threads. Nothing in that thread indicated future discussion on subversion would be unwelcome.


There has never been
consensus on the best source control system to use.

True in general, and in the case of large projects like gcc.
The list of developers of setup is much smaller, though - consensus might be far more achievable. Hence this thread of email, to gather opinions.


I don't see any need to make cygwin's setup code development different
from the rest of cygwin and its packages.

I mentioned one above: The much improved rename support, and it's very useful consequences for setup.


I would not support such a move.

I'd be interested to hear your reasons, so we might discuss this.


Max.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]