[HEADS UP] Ports tree migration to Subversion

[Kevin Oberman]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Jason Helfman <jhelfman at e-e.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 02:47:34PM -0700, Kevin Oberman thus spake:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Thomas Abthorpe <tabthorpe at freebsd.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The FreeBSD ports tree will migrate from CVS to Subversion soon. The
>>> anticipated date for the migration is July 14th. This will have no impact
>>> for ports tree users as there will be a SVN to CVS exporter.
>>>
>>> Please note that cvsup will still work after the migration. Nevertheless
>>> c(v)sup is pretty dated so you may want to see if portsnap(8) will fit
>>> your
>>> needs.
>>>
>>> Beat and Thomas
>>> on behalf of portmgr@
>>>
>>>
>>> http://blogs.freebsdish.org/portmgr/2012/06/27/ports-tree-migration-to-subversion/
>>
>>
>> While portsnap has several advantages over csup, it is unusable in my
>> case because I have always maintained local mods to ports in the ports
>> tree and portsnap neatly removes them. I may move to using svn to
>> maintain my own copy of the tree and update the working directory
>> where I can keep my customizations.
>
>
> You may want to look at the manpage for portsnap.conf and see how
> advantageous it may be to use the REFUSE option.

That an excellent idea. I was thinking that, since I keep my private
patches in the files directory and let the normal 'make patch' apply
them, that it would still delete them, but careful reading of the man
page implies that I could list these file (paths) as REFUSED and
portsnap would leave them alone.

I'll experiment and see of this works. If so, I can move away from csup.

Thanks!
-- 
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
E-mail: kob6558 at gmail.com