On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:31 PM, Todd Zullinger <tmz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Jeff Garzik wrote: >> If done right, the move to git can still service CVS requests in >> some capacity... that may make the transition a little less abrupt >> and painful. > > Perhaps. But git-cvsserver is a rather limited crutch that I can't > imagine anyone wanting to spend much time on, just to let folks > continue to use cvs commands directly. Actually, the biggest issue with it is the somewhat awkward mapping of branches to "cvs modules". But the Fedora CVS repo doesn't use cvs branches AFAIK. (It's not that awkward, but for developers resisting change... ah, every changed comma is a slight :-) ... ). And git-submodules support. And that could be added with a modest effort. > Who knows though, maybe there are more people that actually like cvs > than I think and they'll volunteer to implement and run such a > service. Not so much about liking cvs. In the past, main use cases for git-cvsserver have been (a) users deeply attached to a heavy IDE (Eclipse) that doesn't yet have git support and (b) scripts & misc automation that nobody wants to port. btw, I designed and co-wrote it :-) m -- martin.langhoff@xxxxxxxxx martin@xxxxxxxxxx -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
