On 30/01/11 20:46, Charles Wilson wrote:
> On 1/30/2011 12:05 AM, Chris Sutcliffe wrote:
>>> Just a heads up (for those who haven't read it):
>>> Looks like SourceForge CVS is going to be down for a while,
>>> beyond that, it looks like CVS may be shutdown by SourceForge in
>>> the not-to-distant future (in favour of Subversion). Do we bite
>>> the bullet now and migrate to Subversion? I realize that this
>>> will impact all the work Keith has done with mingw-get, hopefully
>>> it can be modified to use Subversion as opposed to CVS.
> Yes, I had noticed that there were issues with cvs this weekend;
Not just this weekend: since Wednesday, when some lowlife tried to crack
root on one or more of their servers. They've pulled the plug on CVS,
project shell and file upload services while they shore up the holes and
assess the damage.
> I have an updated mingw-get-inst package that I haven't been
> able to upload (I also wanted to add mingw-get-inst to the CVS repo,
> including previous releases in the version history, but was obviously
> stymied on that).
It has also prevented me from committing and uploading the fix for the
defect in mingw-get upgrade, which Chris reported a week or so back.
> As far as "switching" to another version control system, two points:
> 1) If sourceforge doesn't support it, mingw won't use it. We have
> no plans to switch to another source control hosting provider.
And therein lies a potentially serious problem for us: if you read
that article Chris points us to, there is a definitive suggestion that
SF may pull the plug on CVS forever; they are hinting at an enforced
migration to SVN, for all projects who are still using CVS.
> 2) Sad as it may be, one of the primary requirements for mingw to use
> a VCS other than CVS, is: do we have a port that is well-integrated
> with our offerings?
> Right now, the answer is "no" -- all we have is CVS.
So, where do we go from here? It's all well and good telling those who
have been clamouring for alternatives to CVS to "put up or shut up", but
if SF pull the plug on CVS, we need a fall back plan. In the past, I've
resisted calls to migrate to SVN, not just out of inertia, or because we
don't have a suitable client in our arsenal, but primarily because I do
not believe it offers sufficient benefit over CVS to justify the move.
I still believe this; if we are going to adopt a different SCM system,
then we should be considering one of the distributed systems.
Now, personally I find git to quite repulsive. However, the revulsion
is mostly subjective rather than objective, (mostly due to the meaning
of the word "git" itself, in British English -- a really poor choice by
Linus, IMO). In spite of the perceived oddness of msys-git, it may well
represent the best technical choice for us, given the potential
difficulties for us in supporting hg or bzr, if SF force us to drop CVS.