Re: Last bits of SCCS, RCS, CVS and Subversion IDs

On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 10:04 AM Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com>
wrote:

> In message <
> CANCZdfqQRQJq2TxtxwKEgtLcAe5ENOvu2_L+ksE1pVatyKhC-Q@mail.gmail.com>
> , Warner Losh writes:
> >
> > So I plan on just removing the SCCS, RCS, CVS and Subversion Ids that
> > remain in the tree. Though I removed 32k $FreeBSD$ lines, there's about
> 100
> > or so remaining, and a few hundred miscellaneous other IDs. I do plan on
> > keeping the $NetBSD$ and $OpenBSD$ lines for now, though.
> >
> > Comments?
>
> I think the NetBSD and OpenBSD lines still serve some purpose, for two
> reasons.
>
> 1. The OpenBSD lines still document the baseline from which a source was
> obtained.
>    Not so much the NetBSD lines since they now use Mercurial. OpenBSD
> still uses CVS.
>

NetBSD still uses CVS, but has a CVS->Mercurial gateway as a transition.
Still, the writing
is on the wall that this won't lasat forever.


> 2. The remaining OpenBSD lines may reduce merge conflicts if they remain.
>

Yea.

I think the OpenBSD and NetBSD lines are different in a third way as well:
They represent the
state of the upstream when we take it in, and from a 'keep deltas with
upstream smaller rather
than larger' perspective, it's good to retain them as well, even if we've
substantially modified
things since the import....  That was my initial thinking in keeping them.

The reset of that thought is that the other remaining SVN / CVS / RCS /
SCCS tags are from
projects that no longer really have an upstream. They are defunkt now for
many years (decades
in all cases I'm familiar with, but I've not done a full audit to say that
with certainty). They also date
from a time where marking of sources and binaries was fundamentally
different, and did things
that we no longer do and are out of step. So there's no benefit to
retaining it and some desire, at
least to modernize.

Warner