Removing CVS from HEAD

[Peter Jeremy]

On 2012-Sep-10 18:36:38 +0700, Erich Dollansky <erichfreebsdlist at ovitrap.com> wrote:
>I would call a typical user a person who reads this:
>
>http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/updating-upgrading.html

OK.  That is a valid concern but does not directly affect the presence
or absence of CVS in base.  Yes, the handbook does need to be updated
to discuss SVN but having CVS is base is not going to help someone who
is trying to update to 9.1-RELEASE or 10.0-RELEASE by following the
anonymous CVS instructions in the handbook - the tags do not exist.
In this respect, removing CVS could be seen as preferable because the
process will fail quicker so the person wastes less effort.

I have just done a quick check across doc, ports and src and found the
following hits for /cvs/i:
  lines   files
  18076    1921  doc
   6649    1818  ports
  21390     790  src
  46115    4529  total

Based on a quick scan, the majority of these can be ignored but a
non-trivial number are currently out of date and need updating.
Unfortunately, someone™ needs to manually work through all the hits
and work out updates where appropriate.

>The handbook is not a technical reason. Yes. The user base who just
>follows the handbook is also no technical reason.

The handbook is in error for 9.1-RELEASE and later.  Having CVS in
base is not going to help users here.

>I know this when considering just this thread. There is a second one
>saying that the support using CVS for the ports will be stopped.

That thread states that you will not be able to update the ports
tree using CVS.  The CVS port within the ports tree will remain.

>Again, when a user followed strictly the the handbook, the user did not
>even hear yet from subversion.

I don't see anything in your postings that directly justify the
retention of CVS in base.  Rather, you appear to be suggesting that
the FreeBSD Project has too quickly deprecated using CVS to update
FreeBSD because the documentation and infrastrucure to support SVN are
inadequate.  I agree that the announcements were made with very little
(if any) prior discussion and the documentation needs updating but
that is not what this thread is discussing.  If you believe that re@
or portmgr@ have prematurely stopped supporting CVS, please start a
separate thread to discuss that.  Should a decision be made to extend
the use of CVS to update FreeBSD then that will obviously affect any
decision to remove CVS from base.

-- 
Peter Jeremy
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/attachments/20120910/b2280ba9/attachment.pgp