Robert Collins wrote: > mmm, time for arch/subversion/another one of the recent pack of opensource / > free software revision control systems?
Mebbe -- but cygwin still needs a cvs port, because cvs is still the standard. The main attractions to cvsnt are 1) it's still basically cvs. same code base, except a more open development model -- often resync'ed to the "real" cvs code. This means they'll accept our bugfixes and wacky gdbm stuff (hopefully). 2) Because they are focused on windows operation, they already have a good understanding of text/binary issues. They'll be open to the workarounds necessary for smoother cygwin operation on text 'mounts'. 3) They alread have a working daemon implementation for :pserver:, as well as a unique :ntserver: mode that uses the NT/2K/XP SAM password database for authentication. Long term, it would be nice to get that working on cygwin. However, I certainly won't object if somebody wants to port/maintain an arch/subversion/whatever package. --Chuck
