Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>
> * Kate Ebneter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000216 15:35] wrote:
> >
> >
> > Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > > Forking a _working_ version of CVS would just be too resource
> > > intensive for most companies.
> >
> > Really? We forked a working version of gcc. We haven't forked CVS
> > because we haven't needed to, but we would if we did.
>
> Why should it be nessesary to fork a version of CVS just to get real
> fixes in?
Please, WHAT FIXES ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? I hate to shout, but you've
been really unspecific about just what it is that's "broken".
<snip>
> >
> > I'm not confused; on the contrary, some of these patches are misguided.
> > Some might be useful. Some are useful to some people, some are useful
> > for everyone. Your definition of what's "broken" in CVS is obviously not
> > the same as mine. Or Greg's.
>
> My definition of broken is 'not working'. I'm unsure of your interpretation
> of the word but feel free to explain.
Well, I guess that what I REALLY don't understand is what you think is broken!
> > > There's at least five people a week asking for locking.
> >
> > ...and an equal number of people saying that the locking they're asking
> > for is INCOMPATIBLE with the design goals of CVS!
>
> Yes, but it's the SAME FIVE objecting everytime it comes up.
Perhaps you should pay attention to WHY they object, instead of just
assuming that they're being obstructionist.
>
> pfft, I thought it was somewhat amusing.
>
> Look, I understand how 'cvs is supposed to work', I'm not bringing
> up these arguments to get locking in CVS nor symlink support, I'm
> bringing them up because I'd hate to see the same thing that happened
> in my 'rant' to happen to anyone else.
I'll happily admit that I don't know what, exactly, happened in your
particular case, nor do I know what it was that you were purporting to
fix. But it is a reality that, with open source, no one gets paid to put
the source together or maintain it. If I need a patch to work on my copy
of CVS, I am quite happy to put it in my copy of CVS, and if it's not
accepted by the CVS "maintainers," it's no skin off my nose. If I want
CVS to dance and play guitar, I'm quite happy to modify it to do so, and
if the rest of the users of CVS don't want it to dance and play guitar,
there's no law requiring them to accept my changes.
>
> I still think you don't get it, I have no need for locking nor
> symlinks.
Perhaps if you were more clear about what you were ranting about, I
wouldn't have this trouble "getting it."
> All I'm asking for the is that the code be axed entirely... or
> heaven forbid patches accepted to actually fix the troublesome
> crap.
>
> Allowing this garbage to stagnate for over a year really boggles
> the mind. In fact it'd be really easy to get rid of it, all the
> code is wrapped with '#ifdef PRESERVE_PERMISSIONS_SUPPORT' it'd be
> trivial to take it out.
Ahhhhh ... so THIS is what you're ranting about! Well, TURN IT OFF. It's
open source. Or fix it in your own source. And forget about it. It's not
worth getting worked up over, you know?
> It doesn't work, it never worked, it's not been working for over
> a year and patches aren't be accepted to fix it... get rid of it.
Alfred, welcome to the wonderful world of volunteerism. (BTW, there are
bugs in some Microsoft commercial software that have been there for
YEARS. At least with open source, you can fix it for yourself.)
Kate Ebneter
Build Engineer and Rabbit Wrangler
DataRover Mobile Systems, Inc.
