> Sean Cavanaugh wrote:
>
> In what sense is it active? I've been enlisted in it for quite
> some time and haven't seen a single serious commit in a month. The
> activity has been getting slower and slower as time goes on. Looking
> at the cvs diff since 1.10.8, it looks like you more or less the only
> one left doing anything with it.
>
> [...]
>
> I also don't see my decision really as fragmentation at all, at
> the very least it might get the people who apparently control the
> existing CVS to wake up, and do something with it.
>
> The worst case I see realistically with my project over the next
> few months, is that all the various patches floating around the net,
> many of which are good and useful, can be accessible to a wider
> audience and in a centralized place, get backed-up automatically by
> the folks running sourceforge, and perhaps someday get merged into the
> real CVS. This method also solves getting the various patches working
> together, integrated, and tested, so the redundancy in work of people
> running multiple patches on their local site is eliminated.
> The OTHER worst case is that the 'real' CVS continues the way it
> is going and just dies off, and what I've got becomes at the very
> least a support area for fixing bugs and getting minor features
> written. By then it will either get real development, or eventually
> get replaced with a next generation open-source source management
> tool, which is inevitably going to happen someday.
>
> [...]
I agree with Sean's sentiment.
The lack of information and announcements coming from
OpenAvenue/SourceGear leaves a vacuum, a suspicion that
CVS is no longer a priority with its so-called stewards.
Even the website at cvs.cyclic.com does not do anything by
itself but point to the TOP level page at www.sourcegear.com,
which isn't much by itself except that it doesn't give me
confidence that much of anything is going on. After the
initial buy-out announcements (both of them), I waited
patiently to hear how these changes were going to affect
the support, development and stewardship of CVS.
Silence.
CVS is open source, and in that spirit Sean has jumped in to
fill the vacuum, to satisfy the need. At this point, Sean has
by far shown the greatest amount of enthusiasm about taking
stewardship role for CVS, even if it ends up being temporary.
I think that counts for a lot.
If OpenAvenue/SourceGear really want to maintain stewardship
of CVS, then I think they need to be communicating that message
in every way they can.
If they cannot, then ask yourself why not?
In any company or project, there are limited resources, and
you apply those resources to your highest priority tasks.
Your low priority tasks get little or no attention. This is
the message that OpenAvenue/SourceGear is communicating, now,
by not saying anything: CVS is a low priority.
The question is: How long will CVS remain a low priority?
Right now, I put my money on Sean. Sean's enthusiasm and
spirit is much more encouraging to me than the silence from
the old camp.
wade
