Re: CVS removal from the base

On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 1:21 AM, Roman Kurakin <rik_at_inse.ru> wrote:
> Doug Barton wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>> The fact that we have so many people who are radically change-averse, no
>> matter how rational the change; is a bug, not a feature.
>>
>> This particular bug is complicated dramatically by the fact that the
>> majority view seems to lean heavily towards "If I use it, it must be the
>> default and/or in the base" rather than seeing ports as part of the
>> overall operating SYSTEM.
>>
>
> You are right in general, except one small factor. We are talking about
> bootstrap.
> CVS is used by many as the one of the ways to get the sources to the freshly
> installed system to recompile to the last available source. It will become
> inconvenient
> to do it through the process of installing some ports for that. Especially
> if corresponding
> ports would require some other ports as dependencies.

I have to agree with Roman. It's simply far too early to think of
removing cvs from the base OS. If we can come up with a way to replace
the functionality of csup with svn under it, that would be great, but
it may be a long time coming. Until it does, cvs needs to remain with
all of the awkwardness of maintaining cvs when the actual source of
truth is in svn. The time will hopefully come, but I don't see it in
the 10.0 time frame.

OTOH, I can see Doug's argument. I'm sure that, even when no real need
exists for CVS in the base, I imagine there will be loud objections to
its removal, though I suspect Doug's comments were largely spawned by
the debate on the default setting for building profile libraries.
(And, IMHO, Doug is right on that one.)
-- 
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
E-mail: kob6558_at_gmail.com