Re: Can we drop CVS in the trash, please?

[Eric]

Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden>:
> > I just did some work directly on the goff sources for the frst time
> > in years.  No code changes, just some manual-page fixes to avoid
> > confusing doclifter.
> 
> Thanks for that.

I'll have some more patches coming. My objective is to get the
whole documentation corpus to the point where it can be lifted to clean
HTML via doclifter. The benefits for web presentation should be obvious.

doclifter has about a 92% rate of clean conversions (I used to quote
97%, but it's actually dropped because so many projects have switched
to DocBook).  groff's own documents have a strong tendency to break
the converter because they do a lot of low-level troff hackery that is,
in a lot of cases, just showing off.  I'll simplify some of that.

> Hehe.  I don't lik bzr either (my preference is git to which I'm most
> accustomed),

I think that's pretty much the default choice these days; I'm good with it.

>             however, there exists a bzr repository already since a
> few years which traces the groff CVS:
> 
>   https://code.launchpad.net/~vcs-imports/groff/main

How do changes from it get fed back to CVS?

> No problem.  However, may I ask that you discuss this on the groff
> mailing list?

The mail you're replying to was copied there. So far yours is the only
response.

>                     Additionally, before installing an `official'
> repository, I would like to test it advance, so maybe you could
> publish your git tree (as soon as we've come to the conclusion that
> git is the way to go) so that I and other interested people can clone
> it.

Of course.

> On the other hand, maybe the bazaar repository is good enough...

Ugh.  I guarantee that git would lower the participation barrier for
more people.
-- 
                <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>