Re: Bugzilla for cfengine

[John Sechrest]

I understand the dislike. We have a disire to create a strong
system that can be stable. It will be a change for several 
people to engage with just CVS. 

I think we should engage in some skill development and some 
conversation so that all of those people who want to be
developing end up with consensus of what the process for
commits and processing is. 

At this point, I don't have an idea of how many people want to have
commit rights to the archive. I also don't know how many
people want to have patches submitted, but don't want to take
on the responsibility for the archive.

It would be good to have a stronger idea of who wants to 
engage in coding. And what the process for getting
things into the archive should be. 

My expectation is that a small number of people will take on the 
developer role and that others will decide to take on a supporting
role for submitting patches. But I could be way off. My current
plan is to move slowly to set up the system. My intent was to 
set up CVS, because it was supported by Sourceforge. 

My goal is to facilitate how the community can form around cfengine
code development and support. To that end, I think that the core
people, those who want to be code contributors,  need to be come
to an understanding of the goals and process for using the archive. 

To this point, we have not had a revision control system 
nor an associated process for shared engagement in the 
process. How can we support the creation of a strong 
process for high quality coherent software development for cfengine?





Sven Mueller <address@hidden> writes:

 % On Tuesday 14 December 2004 05:16, John Sechrest wrote:

 %  >>> > I set up the Subversion repository last week without any 
 % expectation that
 %  >>> > upstream commits would go though it, just because knowing exactly
 %  >>> > what changes between releases is very important to me. I dislike CVS
 %  >>> > but  if that's what it takes to get formal revision control on the
 %  >>> > cfengine sources, so be it.


 % I must say that I also (strongly) dislike CVS. Subversion is clearly 
 % superior to CVS, especially if you want to keep several branches (stable 
 % and development releases for example) and port changesets from one 
 % branch to the other. It also makes both commits and checkouts atomic 
 % operations (which CVS doesn't) and makes a specific revision number 
 % consistent throughout the whole repository (which CVS can only do if you 
 % tag each commit).

 % So even if bug tracker, release distribution and mailinglists are used 
 % on sourceforge, I would definately prefer a subversion repository to be 
 % used for development, even though it currently can't be hosted on 
 % sourceforge.

 % cu,
 % sven
 % 
 % 
 % 
 % 
 % 
 % _______________________________________________
 % Bug-cfengine mailing list
 % address@hidden
 % http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-cfengine

-----
John Sechrest          .         Helping people use
                        .           computers and the Internet
                          .            more effectively
                             .                      
                                 .       Internet: address@hidden
                                      .   
                                              . http://www.peak.org/~sechrest