This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Cygwin 1.7 release (was Re: The library or libraries will be delivered[...])
On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 09:40:09PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>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...
I suppose we could just stay with CVS while everyone else moves to git.
If the repository is splitting (which I think it should have done long
ago) then it won't matter what we use except that updating a single
sandbox will be a little tricky.