This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Cygwin 1.7 release (was Re: The library or libraries will be delivered[...])

On Jun  4 14:48, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 08:23:11PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >Personally I'd rather keep the w32api directory in the same repository
> >as Cygwin.  It's much more convenient to have the latest CVS version
> >always right where it's needed instead of having to update w32api on
> >the build machine in some other spot.  Especially when making changes
> >which are then used by Cygwin right away.
> >
> >Having said that, I can live with having w32api in another repository.
> >I just doubt that I'd like it.
> How you construct your sandbox doesn't necessarily have anything to do
> with how the upstream repository is laid out.  The only real downside
> (and there are ways around this) is that you couldn't do a "cvs update
> -d" at the top level of "winsup" and have it update everything.
> And, also, incidentally, the other thing that is being contemplated is
> moving to a more modern SCM like subversion or git.

Oh no, not git, please.  I'm already fighting against the Samba and
syslog-ng repositories with not much success.

I still don't understand why everybody is moving away from CVS.  It
works and checkin/update are reasonably fast.  Seems like other SCMs,
especially git, are just en vogue right now.  Incidentally, OpenBSD
is just creating their own OpenCVS...


Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]