What replaces csup?

Stas Verberkt legolas at legolasweb.nl
Tue Sep 18 13:05:06 UTC 2012

Jerry schreef op :
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 05:00:08 -0700
> Michael Sierchio articulated:
>> We are really behind the curve here.  Git assumes (correctly) that
>> disk space is inexpensive, much cheaper per byte than network
>> bandwidth.  By the time we adopt SVN completely, every serious 
>> project
>> I know of will have moved from subversion to git.
> If you are going to make a sweeping change anyway, it makes no sense 
> to
> do it in a half–assed manned. However, it does appear that in all too
> many instances, FreeBSD plays follow the leader rather then taking 
> the
> bulls by the horns and getting ahead of the curve. I am sure I'll be
> hearing from the "baby steps" choir now. In any event, a 
> comprehensive
> side-by-side evaluation of the two should be done by an impartial 
> party.
We should not be forgetting that Git and Subversion represent two 
workflows. The latter stands for a centralistic development cycle, and 
former for a distributed manner. Thus, this type of choice does not 
have to do with big or small steps and leading of following, but more 
the production cycle you want to have.
If we were to use a Git-like system, the releng team would (probably) 
be in
control on which patches are excepted from the pool of suggested 
by the community of developers. This community would be more free in 
manner in which they experiment, and there would be a less strong
differentiation between "committers" and other people suggesting 
updates. On
the other hand, our current approach has a controlled group of 
and the releng team only has the additional power of setting the 
and taking the snapshot that becomes the release. (Gravely simplified.)
It is a matter of taste.

On a side note, using Git does mean that everyone has to download a 
repository. This makes using a csup-like architecture quite 


More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list