Why not give git a try? (was "Re: [head tinderbox] failure on amd64/amd64")

[Diane Bruce]

On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 01:40:50PM +0100, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 02:22:34 -0800, perryh at pluto.rain.com wrote:
> >Diane Bruce <db at db.net> wrote:
> >> There certainly would not be a chance of putting mercurial or git
> >> into base for example.
> >
> > Completely apart from licensing, another strike against mercurial is
> > that it is written in Python, so it couldn't go into base unless
> > Python also went into base.
> 
> This argument is actually a bit weak for most of the VCS'es out there
> (including svn by the way).

Notice I never ever suggested we might want to do such a thing. 
All I said was there would be not a chance of GPL code being added.
The additional argument of mercurial not being added because of its
dependancy on python is immaterial.

> 
> We don't really *need* to import the full VCS itself into FreeBSD.  For
> instance, Subversion is also not part of the base system.  It works fine
> as a port that people can install.

I agree.  Indeed, I would argue that there is other code in base that
should come out.  But I don't want to get that flamefest going again. ;-)

The argument is not putting a VCS into base, the argument is what VCS
to look at in future.  'fossil' is certainly a viable candidate.
I am agreeing the arguments on which VCS to use should be based on the
merits of the VCS itself, not on its licence.

However, if in the long term we chose 'fossil' and then decided that 'fossil'
was absolutely necessary for base, then it would have far less resistance
than a GPL VCS.  That's a small plus, I never said it was a strong plus.


- Diane
-- 
- db at FreeBSD.org db at db.net http://www.db.net/~db