Distributed Version Control for ports(7) ( was: Re: autoconf update )

[Carlos A. M. dos Santos]

On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 6:34 AM, Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu at freebsd.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 02:38:28 -0400
> jhell <jhell at DataIX.net> wrote:
>
>> On 09/18/2010 07:17, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm still to see a concise, clear, precise, listing of advantages
>> > that switching from CVS would bring us,
>> > that would overcome the effort needed to do it (committers, users,
>> > infrastructure, tools).
>>
>>
>> 1). http://bit.ly/d5UrtN
>>
>> 2). http://www.keltia.net/BSDCan/paper.pdf
>>
>> 3). http://bit.ly/97
>> Y8Xi
>>
>> Make your final comparison here:
>> http://bit.ly/cyQBn8
>
>>>
> concise, clear, precise, listing of advantages, that switching from CVS
> would bring _us_
>>>
>
> I have to work daily with 3-4 (D)VCSes for my work and OSS work, so I'm
> pretty well aware of some good and some bad points of each.
>
>> 4). Because CVS just does not do any of this.
>
> Neither does any of them make coffee or pick up girls for me, but this
> neither here nor there, since we're talking about advantages - of
> switching - for ports.
> General "this is why $VCS is the coolest" and general features matrix
> are only the starting point.

You can keep discussing this subject forever, using this kind of
argument. The point here is not if a DVCS is better than CVS or not.
It is if FreeBSD ports will keep using CVS or move to something else,
preferably a DCVS. This move will happen if - and only if - somebody
volunteers to to the work or get paid to do it. So I suggest you to

1. Define what must be done, as well as a deadline.
2. Calculate the amount necessary to pay somebody with the right
skills to do the work.
3. Create a bounty to raise the required funds.
4. Start working on the task.

And yes, I'd happily donate some money to such initiative.