On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 11:09 -0500, Jeffrey C. Ollie wrote: > On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 10:44 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote: > > On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 10:31 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote: > > > On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 09:17 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > > > > I'm glad this is started back up. One thing that amuses me is back > > > > before the F7 launch it almost seemed assured that we would all go with > > > > mercurial. This line isn't so clear now, a lot of people have been > > > > using git. It seems our future is either going to be A) do nothing and > > > > continue with CVS or B) move to HG or Git. > > > > > > Yeah, definitely time to start this back up. > > > > And just to make things clear, it's time to start up talking about it, > > investigating our options and getting some things rolling. But that > > _doesn't_ mean we should rush things to just get them done based on an > > arbitrary deadline. This is the sort of thing we're going to have to > > live with for a long while, so it's better to have it take an extra > > release cycle before rolling out and get it right. Otherwise, we'll > > have a revolt on our hands :-) > > I agree and I disagree. Yes, we need to carefully consider our next > step. On the other hand I think that we need to get off of CVS as soon > as possible. From what I've seen while testing the conversion to GIT > there seems to be corruption in some of the CVS repositories. It's most > noticeable in large/active packages (the kernel is a notable example) > but sometime small packages are affected. I don't think that it's had a > major effect so far because I think that it's relatively rare that > people go back and look at old revisions of the packages (probably > because that's so difficult in CVS). I wouldn't be entirely certain there -- for one thing, don't discount bugs in the conversion process. Also, there have been rare cases where things have been munged a bit directly which leads to things being ... not exactly as perhaps expected. Jeremy
