Zac Medico posted on Tue, 08 Jan 2013 23:42:39 -0800 as excerpted:

> Weren't we planning to drop the CVS keywords for the git migration,
> anyway?

Talking about which... I don't want a big subthread out of this, just 
looking for a simple answer:

Are the git migration blockers at such a point that we can get an ETA 
yet?  Something rough, like are we talking near midyear, late this year 
or early next, maybe two years out, or not close enough to even approach 
a reasonable guess, yet.

Because if it's actually looking like this year, then anything like 
switching on cvs to serial numbers as mentioned elsewhere, probably isn't 
worth the trouble.  Let's focus on the git switch and get 'er done!  But 
if it's still a good two years out or so far out we can't get a 
reasonable estimate, it could be worth it.

I've seen other ideas float by recently that arguably have a similar git-
migration-timing dependence, so a suitably fuzzy ETA, or simply knowing 
one isn't yet possible, would be quite useful. =:^)

And of course if it's suitably close, it may be time to get council on it 
to try to coordinate a shoot-for date (or notify folks thinking about 
running for the next council that it happen that term, so they maybe 
should consider it when they run).  But my feel is it's at least not 
close enough for the first yet, tho maybe the second... or is it?

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman


Reply via email to