Jeffrey C. Ollie wrote:
Apologies for dropping off the radar for the past few weeks, but things
at work got busier rather than slacking off after the semester started
(I got assigned several new high-priority projects - such is life when
working in an understaffed IT shop) and I vastly underestimated how busy
things would be in the evenings and weekends shuttling my kids back and
forth to various activities.
Anyway, things still are very busy with non-Fedora related stuff, but I
thought that I owed it to the community to post this and get the
discussion started again.
It was my impression that there was very little consensus on what (if
anything) should be done. There seemed to be three camps:
1) Stick with CVS as is.
2) Switch to another VCS, but the data in the repository would remain
similar to what we currently use (RPM spec plus patches).
3) Switch to another VCS, but the data in the repository would radically
change to an "expanded source" style repository.
All three camps have vocal proponents as well as vocal opponents. My
suspicion is that the "silent majority" is in the "stick with CVS" camp.
My personal choice would be to switch to Git for the VCS but keep the
repository data the same (spec file plus patches). I feel that
switching to expanded source-style repositories is too radical of a
change - we give up the notion of pristine source plus patches. Also,
using an expanded source-style repository would mean that packagers
would have to become much more familiar with the VCS since they would
need to maintain various branches (vendor branch, branches for various
patches).
I don't like git particularly but I could see us going somewhere on this
route. It's where we started three or four releases ago :-)
I would like to see the "optionally keep an expanded tree" work that you
were working on included in this. That could probably be added on after
the fact, though.
-Toshio
