Does / Is anyone maintaining CVS for FreeBSD?

[Matthias Andree]

Am 03.01.2013 01:50, schrieb Erich Dollansky:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 17:02:11 +0100
> Matthias Andree <... at FreeBSD.org> wrote:

Please do not quote addresses.  Not all web archives and copies hide
them properly.

>> The migration was made in order to get "things inside the OS ...
>> improved" at all.  Developers were fed up wasting too much time
>> struggling with CVS itself rather than working on "the things inside
>> the OS".
> 
> I hightly doubt that the efforts spent now are worth this.
> 
> It would have been so much easier and smoother to make the change with
> 10.0.

Regarding versions, please read the relevant information:
the relevant decision was made years ago, and the version number you
slap at the switch is a moot point.

A security incident pushed things forward in an unscheduled way, and
prompted the project to expedite some infrastructure works that had been
pending, because work was required to rebuild major parts of it anyways.

> A normal user does not expect any changes of this kind in a x.1 release.

A "normal user" does not care about what happens in between releases
beyond security updates and other errata corrections, but uses
freebsd-update to upgrade from one pre-compiled release to a newer, and
I have also observed that people need to recompile custom kernels less
often than with older FreeBSD releases.

Anything else is talking about doing FreeBSD development.

> But it also makes one other problem obvious. The ports tree has no
> version numbers. So, even if the switch would have been made with the
> 10.0 release, it would have been the same problem for the ports tree.

That, too, was discussed, and dismissed due to lack of manpower to look
after a versioned tree, on the relevant -ports list.  This item crops up
every so often, but stable@ is not the right list to discuss this on.
For users, again, portsnap is the tool to use.

Anything else is talking about doing FreeBSD development.

> Even today, the handbook states only two sites for SVN and a long list
> for CVS. Wouldn't it have been a bit more practical to build the
> infrastructure first and then pull the plug?
> What will happen to the two SVN servers when no others come up soon?

A "long list [of sites] for CVS" is required to overcome load problems.
 I have not yet found SVN servers lacking in performance, whether I was
checking out FreeBSD 9 sources, or the ports tree.  Updates are much
quicker IMO than they ever were with CVS, even with a local c[v]sup copy
of the CVS sources on the same computer.

You would not provision more servers unless there is a need to.  I
suppose more would be added should the need arise.

And it is really recommended that users read the existing material on
the list archives before re-iterating.  (We should possibly just respond
with a list of URLs :))