On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 02:22:26PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 13:06:49 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd love to see people migrating to Arch
Compared to SVN from the view of somebody who is acquainted with CVS,
arch sucks badly. I tend to agree with
On 8/21/05, Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm quite confident that there will be an upgrade path from Arch archives to
bzr archives. Canonical, amongst other people, have too much invested in
Arch to just let that history fester. As for hct, I understand it is a
wrapper frontend to
Daniel Stone wrote:
vim! emacs!
And my cats looked out to see who was calling them... :)
--
.''`. Follow the white Rabbit - Ranty (and Lewis Carroll)
: :' :
`. `'Proudly running Debian GNU/Linux (Sid 2.6.11 Ext3)
`- www.amayita.com www.malapecora.com
Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Saturday 20 August 2005 02:20 pm, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
How does their extensive use of it explain why they would reimplement
it?
Is there anyone who's used CVS extensively and HASN'T thought about
reimplementing it?
Sure. Me, for
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 07:01:37PM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote:
On Saturday 20 August 2005 02:20 pm, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
How does their extensive use of it explain why they would reimplement
it?
Is there anyone who's used CVS extensively
On 8/19/05, Steinar H. Gunderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd love to see people migrating to Arch
Being a long-time Arch user, let me tell you that Arch has been
orphaned upstream. Currently baz is the only version being developed,
and it's unclear for how long, as Canonical has their eyes on
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 10:05:43PM +1200, Martin Langhoff wrote:
On 8/19/05, Steinar H. Gunderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd love to see people migrating to Arch
Being a long-time Arch user, let me tell you that Arch has been
orphaned upstream.
Correction: tla, an Arch frontend, has been
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 09:11:20PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 10:05:43PM +1200, Martin Langhoff wrote:
On 8/19/05, Steinar H. Gunderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd love to see people migrating to Arch
Being a long-time Arch user, let me tell you that Arch has
also sprach Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.08.21.0306 +0200]:
Uhm, CVS implements RCS, but exposes a different interface.
I don't think this is accurate. CVS uses RCS internally, but
provides its own implementation in case $RCSBIN/$PATH don't contain
the RCS binaries. It does not
On Sat, 2005-08-20 at 14:20 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 07:31:38PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
most popular open source revision control software.
And among the most horrible ones.
On Saturday 20 August 2005 02:20 pm, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
How does their extensive use of it explain why they would reimplement
it?
Is there anyone who's used CVS extensively and HASN'T thought about
reimplementing it?
Daniel
--
/--- Daniel Burrows [EMAIL
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 07:01:37PM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote:
On Saturday 20 August 2005 02:20 pm, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
How does their extensive use of it explain why they would reimplement
it?
Is there anyone who's used CVS extensively and HASN'T thought about
reimplementing
[Romain Francoise]
Perhaps not. These days RCS isn't really used as a revision control
system but as a component in a variety of applications: some are
related to revision control, some are not (wiki engines, etc). We
don't keep it solely for interoperability.
And we don't have multiple
Peter Samuelson, 2005-08-20 13:50:10 +0200 :
And we don't have multiple implementations of it in Debian, either.
That is the *real* point.
Of course, we don't have multiple implementations of a minimal shell
aiming at POSIX compliance. Or an X server. Or a light, fast yet
configurable window
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 07:31:38PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
most popular open source revision control software.
And among the most horrible ones.
Agreed. Why anyone would bother to reimplement an already existing free
Norbert Tretkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Luciano Bello wrote:
I really think that OpenCVS must be part of Debian.
Agreed.
However, if it has interoperability problems (and they more or less
promise it will), then it must have a different command-line name.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
* Peter Samuelson:
[Romain Francoise]
Perhaps not. These days RCS isn't really used as a revision control
system but as a component in a variety of applications: some are
related to revision control, some are not (wiki engines, etc). We
don't keep it solely for interoperability.
And we
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 07:31:38PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
most popular open source revision control software.
And among the most horrible ones.
Agreed. Why anyone would bother to reimplement an already existing free
tool is beyond me.
For several reasons, one being that
also sprach Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.08.19.1136
+0200]:
Also notice that some of our services (web pages, documentation
project) use CVS and will do so for a long time. Having a CVS
server available to switch to if a security issue in the current
standard CVS
* martin f krafft [Fri, 19 Aug 2005 00:54:45 +0200]:
I oppose to this ITP for the single reason that CVS should be faded
out and its users starved and deprived and forced towards SVN and
bazaar! Har har har!
I don't see opencvs failing to meet any of the requirements of Policy
2.2.1, or
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 11:41:16AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
So instead of preparing the package, I suggest investing the time to
migrate projects from CVS to SVN or bazaar instead.
I'd love to see people migrating to Arch (and you get the added benefit of
GPG-signed commit, if you want to
also sprach Steinar H. Gunderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.08.19.1306 +0200]:
a security-related perspective), but making a more secure CVS (if
they really manage to do that) will probably be a _lot_ easier
... it's already been done, kind of: Subversion.
--
Please do not send copies of list
Le Ven 19 Août 2005 11:36, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña a écrit :
Also notice that some of our services (web pages, documentation
project) use CVS and will do so for a long time. Having a CVS server
available to switch to if a security issue in the current standard
CVS server is found is
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 13:06:49 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd love to see people migrating to Arch
Compared to SVN from the view of somebody who is acquainted with CVS,
arch sucks badly. I tend to agree with most of the things that Florian
Weimer lists on
also sprach Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.08.19.1422 +0200]:
Compared to SVN from the view of somebody who is acquainted with CVS,
arch sucks badly. I tend to agree with most of the things that Florian
Weimer lists on http://www.enyo.de/fw/software/arch/design-issues.html
I won't go
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 02:33:31PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.08.19.1422 +0200]:
Compared to SVN from the view of somebody who is acquainted with CVS,
arch sucks badly. I tend to agree with most of the things that Florian
Weimer lists on
also sprach Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.08.19.1422 +0200]:
Compared to SVN from the view of somebody who is acquainted with CVS,
arch sucks badly. I tend to agree with most of the things that Florian
Weimer lists on http://www.enyo.de/fw/software/arch/design-issues.html
Looking over the
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 02:22:26PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
Compared to SVN from the view of somebody who is acquainted with CVS,
arch sucks badly. I tend to agree with most of the things that Florian
Weimer lists on http://www.enyo.de/fw/software/arch/design-issues.html
Note that it's over a
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 11:41:16AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
So instead of preparing the package, I suggest investing the time to
migrate projects from CVS to SVN or bazaar instead.
I rather waste my limited time doing more useful things. Besides, you
can't compare the migration of a CVS
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 11:41 +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
So instead of preparing the package, I suggest investing the time to
migrate projects from CVS to SVN or bazaar instead.
Beyond the description of the program (from the website), OpenCVS is
simply another option at the time of
Luciano Bello writes:
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 11:41 +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
So instead of preparing the package, I suggest investing the time to
migrate projects from CVS to SVN or bazaar instead.
Beyond the description of the program (from the website), OpenCVS is
simply another option
Michael Poole on 2005-08-19 10:32:27 -0400:
OpenCVS has not yet identified any specific problem (except the GPL)
that the project would address.
It has indeed. GNU CVS has a poor security record; OpenCVS plans not
to.
It should be noted that OpenCVS has not been released, OpenBSD still
uses
Alec Berryman writes:
Michael Poole on 2005-08-19 10:32:27 -0400:
OpenCVS has not yet identified any specific problem (except the GPL)
that the project would address.
It has indeed. GNU CVS has a poor security record; OpenCVS plans not
to.
What part of specific was unclear? I could plan
martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also notice that some of our services (web pages, documentation
project) use CVS and will do so for a long time. Having a CVS server
available to switch to if a security issue in the current
* Luciano Bello wrote:
I really think that OpenCVS must be part of Debian.
Agreed.
And I will work in it, unless somebody has a
*really_reasonable_objection*.
Go for it.
Norbert
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 09:39:49 -0700
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also notice that some of our services (web pages, documentation
project) use CVS and will do so for a long time.
Stefan Hornburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think it's not a good revision control system is a good
reason to refuse the package, for exactly the same reason that Debian
still packages a telnet client even though everyone really should be
using
Stefan Hornburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
There is a really good reason to have telnet *client* on board, and that
is accessing IMAP / SMTP etc. servers for testing purposes.
beside the point
FWIW I do prefer gnutls-cli for that purpose, as it supports STARTTLS.
;-)
/
cu
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 02:33:31PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.08.19.1422 +0200]:
Compared to SVN from the view of somebody who is acquainted with CVS,
arch sucks badly. I tend to agree with most of the things that Florian
Weimer lists on
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Alec Berryman wrote:
It has indeed. GNU CVS has a poor security record; OpenCVS plans not
to.
Just like with OpenSSH? Sorry, could not resist..
--j
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
* Roberto C. Sanchez:
There is a good reason that CVS development has stagnated. CVS is
broken and there are better alternatives.
Some people say it's its rotten codebase. A rewrite from scratch
hasn't got this problem. The RCS-based file format isn't too bad and
optimizes for some common
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Or just the example of RCS, which is probably the most to point.
Perhaps not. These days RCS isn't really used as a revision control
system but as a component in a variety of applications: some are related
to revision control, some are not (wiki engines,
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Daniel Stone wrote:
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 02:33:31PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.08.19.1422 +0200]:
Compared to SVN from the view of somebody who is acquainted with CVS,
arch sucks badly. I tend to agree with most of
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Luciano Bello [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: opencvs
Version : unknown, posible release: 1st Sep
Upstream Author : Jean-François Brousseau [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://www.opencvs.org/
* License : BSD
Description
also sprach Luciano Bello [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.08.18.2350 +0200]:
OpenCVS is a FREE implementation of the Concurrent Versions System, the
What's non-free about the current implementation?
most popular open source revision control software.
And among the most horrible ones.
I oppose to
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 12:54:45AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Luciano Bello [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.08.18.2350 +0200]:
OpenCVS is a FREE implementation of the Concurrent Versions System, the
What's non-free about the current implementation?
I think that the original
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 06:50:47PM -0300, Luciano Bello wrote:
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Luciano Bello [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: opencvs
Version : unknown, posible release: 1st Sep
Upstream Author : Jean-Fran?ois Brousseau [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL
47 matches
Mail list logo
