Re: CVS removal from the base

On Dec 5, 2011, at 7:57 AM, Claude Buisson <clbuisson_at_orange.fr> wrote:

> On 12/05/2011 16:28, Tom Evans wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Lowell Gilbert
>> <freebsd-current-local_at_be-well.ilk.org>  wrote:
>>> Tom Evans<tevans.uk_at_googlemail.com>  writes:
>>> 
>>>> On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Max Khon<fjoe_at_samodelkin.net>  wrote:
>>>>> CVS != csup.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I wonder how many people will express their sentiments about CVS when
>>>>> they really mean cvsup/csup.
>>>> 
>>>> I wasn't going to jump onto this bikeshed, as CVS will not be going
>>>> anywhere any time soon, I am sure.
>>>> 
>>>> I use cvs, rather than csup. I use cvsup to fetch CVS archives to
>>>> /home/ncvs, and check out ports from there, as described in
>>>> development(7).
>>>> 
>>>> If ports were no longer delivered via CVS, you may have had a point
>>>> about removing CVS from base - but they are not.
>>> 
>>> Max Khon was the one who posted the original message in the thread.
>>> That message explicitly stated that moving ports and doc away from CVS
>>> was a prerequisite for removing CVS from base. As far as I've noticed,
>>> no one has challenged that.
>>> 
>>> I'm trying to think of a way to fit the previous paragraph into the
>>> bikeshed metaphor, but I'm coming up with nothing.
>>> 
>> 
>> The bikeshed is discussing about how cvs will eventually be removed
>> from base when there are known, unsolved, issues that block that
>> happening.
>> 
>> Removing CVS will be an emotive issue, there is no need to discuss it
>> until appropriate, as every one (like me) will wade in saying that "x
>> is good and must stay" and "x is bad and must die", and every colour
>> of bike shed in between. Just look at the number of replies to this
>> topic.
>> 
>> It would be much better to concentrate on the other issues rather than
>> animated discussion of something that cannot realistically happen for
>> quite some time yet.
>> 
> 
> This could have been more clear, and the bikeshed could be stopped soooner, if
> it had been written before in an authoritative form, and by those who are at the
> start of this "unrealistic proposal".

This proposal might have been better for arch for a first pass. I know there are active efforts in progress by the community to move docs and ports over to svn, but I'm not sure what the progress is.
Thanks,
-Garrett