[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Maintenance of the Hurd parts in glibc (was: about GNU Hurd)

From: Michael Casadevall
Subject: Re: Maintenance of the Hurd parts in glibc (was: about GNU Hurd)
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 21:13:34 -0400 (EDT)

Hash: SHA1

I also like mercurial, although I'm not picky (I used monotone for quite a
long time, but anything is a major improvement over CVS). Savannah offers
CVS, git, and arch. arch and git are both decentralized, altough I find
arch very difficult to use.

Anyway, I've been tracking the CVS repo in git, and incrementaly upgrading
every once in awhile, complete will the CVS history and such. I personally
think using git is the best option, arch itself is not wel maintained, CVS
... well, I could go on for a few hours about this, and subversion itself
isn't available for Hurd at the moment (since libapr fails its test

I realize no matter what we do, people are going to be upset, but its
hurting the project as a whole staying on CVS. Linux and quite a few of
GNU projects (like coreutils) use git. If we REALLY wanted/needed
Subversion server, it could be hosted off Savannah, although we'd need
someone to maintain a server or something.

As for libc still using CVS, I don't know enough about them to say why they still are, but it seems to be more of an expection then a rule; most projects have, or are planning to migrate from CVS.

Anyway, as a general comprise, why don't we simply move to SVN (while not actively stated, Savannah does host Subversion repos, it needs to be turned on in the project preferences by a project admin; most DVCS can work with a subversion backend (the major expection being monotone, and mercural; git, bzr, and svk can use subversion as a backend) and the learning curve of going from cvs to svn is learning to type svn instead of cvs :-)

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Michael Banck wrote:


On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 06:49:12PM +0200, Pierre THIERRY wrote:
Maybe it would help to lower entry barriers for the project. A
distributed version control helps technically.

What I think is most important is that people can easily locally
branch/merge the master (CVS) repository with their favourite DVCS, be
it git, bzr, darcs or mercurial.

I understand this is much easier with subversion than cvs (I know people
who transparently use git-over-svn when maintaining Debian packages at
svn.debian.org, the only strange thing you see is the "Signed-off-by"
notice), and apparently it's similarly easy with bzr; dunno about darcs
and mercurial.

As Savannah does not provide subversion, we are stuck with cvs for the
time being, but it should also be possible here, albeit with a bit more
pain I guess.

A DVCS really makes most sense when you have loads of contributors and
loads of branches (like Linux, X.org, gcc); we'd probably very quickly
have more `first-level repositories' than actual users...

And on another (personal) note, as long as glibc can apparently be
maintained in CVS, it's sort of presumptious to think the Hurd needs
something better...

Adding a git repository mirroring the (master) CVS repository at
savannah would be cool I guess, but I am not sure switching over to git at
this point has any big advantages compared to the (also present)

Maybe we could mirror Hurd's CVS to some DVCS and see if it helps.
I've already tailored it to Mercurial, if someone is interested:


That's awesome (really!); are you keeping it up-to-date, or is this a
one-time shot?

We should collect that (and possibily other DVCS mirrors) at least at
the wiki or maybe even http://hurd.gnu.org (if this is going to be a
somewhat permanent service).


Bug-hurd mailing list

Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]