This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Cygwin 1.7 release (was Re: The library or libraries will be delivered[...])


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...


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]