[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> Hmmm, okay, perhaps you can explain what the situation with the stewardship
> of CVS is.
I don't work for OpenAvenue, but I am one of the CVS maintainers and I
think I can clear up some of your misconceptions.
> It seems that Cyclic basically got tired of maintaining it,
> but didn't feel like passing the torch. Then they were bought by SourceGear,
> who maintains a (slow) web page for it and little else. How did OpenAvenue
> get passed the stewardship? Or is there no tie in - you're just stepping
> in to try to push forward your own branch of a project that is barely
> maintained by its current steward?
Cyclic never maintained it -- CVS is maintained by a (very!) loosely
organized(?) group of independent developers. Cyclic provided
administration of the CVS source repository and CVS web pages. They
also provided commercial CVS support and maintenance, much as Cygnus
does for GNU software. When the principals of Cyclic decided to get out
of the commercial CVS support business, SourceGear decided to buy both
the name and the business. They also volunteered to continue providing
the repository and web pages as well as to support some dedicated
development resources and to take more of a leadership role in the
development and maintenance of CVS. Since SourceGear had not previously
been involved in CVS development or maintenance, it has (understandably)
taken them some time to get up to speed.
I must admit that I too am not entirely sure what the acquisition of
cyclic.com by OpenAvenue really means -- it appears that OpenAvenue is
intending to provide the administrative support that Cyclic originally
provided (without the dedicated development resource or leadership that
SourceGear had planned), but I'm hoping someone from OpenAvenue will
answer the rest of your questions, too.
-Larry Jones
Geez, I gotta have a REASON for everything? -- Calvin
