Does / Is anyone maintaining CVS for FreeBSD?

[Chris H]

Greetings Eitan, and thank you for your reply.

> On 31 December 2012 15:40, Chris H <chris#@1command.com> wrote:
>> Sigh...
>> IM(NS)HO; SVN is an inferior RCS created so Windows users wouldn't feel
>> left out.
>
> SVN has a number of features which makes development much easier.
>
> What did you find easier to accomplish with CVS than with SVN?

I'm going to resist the temptation to respond to this, out of respect
to you, and the list -- lest it turn into a "flame fest" || "bikeshed".
I understand that in the core development teams opinion, that the
project became too unwieldy to continue maintaining it under CVS. That's
their opinion, it's really their project, and I must respect _their_
opinion. That doesn't mean I like it -- or even agree. But, as I am the
recipient of the fruits of their labor, who am I to disagree. But,
none-the-less, opinions are like ass...ahem... backsides; everyone has
one. :)
There are arguments on both sides; some (perhaps you) feel SVN has/
provides more options, others (maybe myself) feel the same can be
accomplished with CVS, and that migration only causes more initial
(and unnecessary) overhead. I'll leave it at that. :)

>
>> Are there _any_ CVS servers/trunks/tree's left? If so, how _current_ are
>> they?
>
> Ports and Source currently have CVS trees.
> Ports has an explicit EoL on February 28th (2 months from today)
> Source does not have an explicit EoL though it *is* considered deprecated.

Thank you for providing this information, and my apologies, for not having
better researched it myself. I'll make an effort to provide a permanent CVS
repo for both src && ports.

Thanks again, for taking the time to respond.

--Chris

>
>
> --
> Eitan Adler
>