There are 31 people with write access to dri.sf.net. The simplest solution would be for those 31 to switch to BitKeeper. It is easy to then mirror a read-only copy of the Bitkeeper repository to Sourceforge CVS. The key controversial point in the BK licenses is that the license for the free version prevents you from working on a competing source code control tool. I don't know if that applies to anyone working on DRI.
On the other hand, if some of the writers won't switch we would need a much more complicated system for exchanging updates. I'm doing that currently via a manual process for Mesa3d between SF CVS and my BK version. A main problem is that bitkeeper has a richer set of commands than CVS. For example BK tracks when a file is moved or renamed and CVS doesn't. I haven't explored the attempts at automated tools for doing this. --- Keith Whitwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It sounds like it should be sophisticated enough to allow a transition where > sourceforge cvs continues to work and be updated, and accept updates of its > own. That is it *sounds* like we could have some developers using cvs, some > bitkeeper but have changes to some notional "trunk" propogate to and be > visible in both systems - if done rapidly enough there should be few > conflicts > requiring manual resolution. > > Keith > > ===== Jon Smirl [EMAIL PROTECTED] __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
