> Of course not change the VCS of a running project. But if we > start from a mostly new codebase, using a better VCS would not > be too much work. > > That is quite a big `if', isn't it?
right, but that's what we're considering, isn't it? Are we? In either case, Savannah has support for GNU Arch now, so if a new repository is needed there is no real problem in changing VCS's for a new code base when such a code base exists. > And no, you IMHO cannot realize -Ofun with cvs. > > IMHO you can, and it has been achived quite often. I guess it is > something we will have to agree to disagree about. OK. Still I do not understand why so many projects use cvs. And I don't understand why so many operating systems are built around Unix. It boils down to `worse is better' I guess. > If nearly everyone can change code, it has to be possible to > easily rollback the complete change of an > unixperienced/malicious commiter. > > CVS already allows for that. Maybye I am ill-informed, but AFAIK this is not really easy. It isn't as easy as with changeset based VCSs, but it is easy enough. Most of the time, the `incorrect code' is fixed by committing a new changeset ontop of that. Rolling back things isn't a very frequent operation. > I guess you only comment on the first statement. Commit rights > aren't casted far and wide. Doing so would mean giving > everyone the right to commit who wants to. > > It might have to do with nobody contributing much code to warrant > them being given commit access. Maybye, but giving commit access _after_ the developer has contributed much code is completely against the Ofun paradigm. Could you clarify why having commit access is a requirement for actually starting to hack? When I start, I just modify my local tree, and work on that until I'm happy with the result. Cheers. _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
