On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 11:46:00AM -0500, Todd T. Fries wrote: > Penned by Troy Benjegerdes on 20080508 16:11.40, we have: > [..] > | Finally, from a developer point of view, I believe it is quite important > | that the first project of the new foundation be to migrate from the > | existing CVS source code repository to a distributed open-source based > | version control system. (This would mostly likely be either Git or > | Mercrial.. once in either one of these formats, conversions any other > | source control system of choice should be a lot easier) > > I suspect that cvs would be finely distributed if the /afs/openafs.org cell > were still active. > > That being said, it is clear you have an agenda and preferances with code > version control software. > > Perhaps rather than stating the conslusion, you could state the problem > you are trying to solve? > > :-)
The problem I am trying to solve is allowing a occasional developer (like me) who should NOT have commit access to CVS to be able to make a local branch in a local repository, do some development, and then easily be able to merge it into the latest upstream development, so that I can make some changes, test them for awhile, then submit a patch against the latest equivalent of CVSHEAD. I would get most of this functionality if /afs/openafs.org were still active, and then importing the CVS into mercurial. But that's still a fundamentally different development model than what is possible with distributed source control systems. If I had an easy, supported way to pull in the latest HEAD branch to my local changes, it would be a lot easier for me to submit patches fixing all the warnings that scroll by. We don't need to re-invent a better source control system.. Bitkeeper, Git, darcs, monotone, mercurial have all already tried that. I would just like openafs to pick one and go with it. _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
