This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the eCos project.
Re: Re: Looking in a future: VCS for eCos 3.0
- From: "Marcos Del Puerto" <mpuertog at gmail dot com>
- To: ecos-discuss at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 17:24:25 +0200
- Subject: Re: [ECOS] Re: Looking in a future: VCS for eCos 3.0
- References: <20080827145131.GA12261@ubuntu.local> <48B7FFC9.7040605@eCosCentric.com> <20080829160552.GA23722@ubuntu.local> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Sorry. I know eCos Pro is not the same as eCos. I knew that the FSF
was the copyright holder of eCos but I couldn't find any reference to
eCos in RedHat or at the FSF page more recent than 2004.
* John Dallaway is the eCos 3.0 release manager,
* ecos is an eCos centric's registered trademark
* The future version release announcement "...and it is time to push
forward with our plans for a new release of eCos"
* And announcements like Ahttp one in ecosforge: "While we're waiting
for the paperwork to clear in the official eCos repository we merge
changes here." and ecosforge's about section
I believed (mistakenly) that when he said "we" he meant the company
and that its development was mainly centralized in it (at least as far
as the CVS commits are concerned).
Marcos del Puerto
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 4:23 PM, Grant Edwards <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 2008-09-01, Marcos Del Puerto <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Of course that eCos centric has to choose the VCS that best
>> fits their likes and requirements,
> Why do you say that? eCos does not belong to eCosCentric.
>> but does eCos really need a distributed VCS?
>> I do not know how eCos is developed but I do not think there
>> are eCos development groups sparse around the globe who commit
>> frecuently changes?
> Yes, there are developers outside eCosCentric.
>> Has eCos centric outsourced parts of the development kernel to
>> other companies?
> You seem to be under the impression that eCos is the property
> of eCosCentric. The FSF holds the copyrights to eCos, and some
> development goes on outside of eCosCentric.
> I'd probably vote for Subversion, except for the fact that
> Subversion is what we use internally. Since subversion treats
> the CVS directory and its contents as normal files, it's rather
> handy the way it is. I can check out a source tree from CVS
> and then check it into Subversion (CVS directories and all).
> Merging in changes from the "official" tree is simply a
> matter of doing a "cvs update" followed by an "svn commit".
> At any time I can do either a "cvs diff" or an "svn diff".
> Still, if the consensus was to move to Subversion for eCos, I
> wouldn't complain.
> Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
> and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss