Fallout from the CVS discussion

[Eitan Adler]

On 16 September 2012 15:53, Adrian Chadd <adrian at freebsd.org> wrote:

> * I'd like to first see a roadmap for doing this - eg, "we're adding a
> NO_CVS option; CVS will become a port, you can migrate to the CVS port
> with your next build/installworld";

We have WITHOUT_CVS .

> * if you're that way inclined, backport the NO_CVS option (if it
> doesn't exist) to -9;

Already done.

> * Ensure all of the stuff that uses CVS is migrated beforehand, and
> publish all of that effort somewhere;

This is part of my plan.

> * Make sure you're doing it for reasons that aren't coming across as
> "GPL free! at all costs!"

This has nothing to do with the reasons I proposed to remove CVS.
Please re-read my original email. The first words were "CVS is
obsolete."
I had *no idea* CVS was GPLed until the thread started (I thought were
using a BSD licensed one).

> Now, to stir up trouble, I hereby suggest that if you're going to
> remove CVS because it's no longer used for FreeBSD's project stuff, we
> should obviously import subversion into the base because _it_ is being
> used for the FreeBSD project stuff.

Please re-read the original thread. I am removing CVS because it is
obsolete. CVS being used for FreeBSD project was merely a key blocker
to its removal.

> Think of why you're not doing that
> (likely because it's already a port/package and there's just as much
> inertia to introduce something to the base system as there is removing
> it and making it a port) and see if that helps refocus your reasons
> for and against doing things.

I am not proposing introducing subversion into base because I am not
willing to do the work to maintain it. If I were, that would be a
different story (imho, the base should have sufficient software to
download and compile itself).


-- 
Eitan Adler