Robert Elz <kre%munnari.OZ.AU@localhost> writes:
> Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2015 12:21:21 -0400
> From: Greg Troxel <gdt%ir.bbn.com@localhost>
> Message-ID: <rmiio9z6ghq.fsf%fnord.ir.bbn.com@localhost>
>
> | Benny Siegert <bsiegert%gmail.com@localhost> writes:
> | > a) moving away from sourceforge is a good occasion for moving away from CVS,
> |
> | agreed
>
> I disagree - unless the plan is also to move pkgsrc away from cvs (at the
> same time.)
I think pkgsrc itself is a discussion for another day.
> The two ought to be using the same technology throughout, or part of the
> rationale for wip to exist is lost.
Perhaps part of the rationale changes to explore how pkgsrc in git/hg
would be, instead of matching.
> I know that I unpack wip (when I use it) into .../pkgsrc/wip and then
> use
> cd .../pkgsrc; cvs up
>
> to update both pkgsrc and pkgsrc/wip in one operation. That makes wip behave
> and act, just like pkgsrc, and I can (once it is set up) simply forget that
> it is a little different.
I used to be able to do that. Now 'cvs up' in pkgsrc does pkgsrc, and
then I just cd into wip and cvs up for that. So changing to git up
instead is easy. (Yes, I know git up isn't a command, and have:
[alias]
up = !git remote update -p && git merge --ff-only @{u}
> While wip serves to develop packages, for which the version control tool is
> irrelevant, it also serves to teach people how to operate on pkgsrc, which
> requires that the two use the same mechanisms.
Not really, because using source control is a basic skill that transfers
across many projects, and what's hard about pkgsrc is pkgsrc-specific.
If you look at what's been trouble or contentious, it hasn't been about
tool usage.
Attachment:
pgpJb3pNxUQhN.pgp
Description: PGP signature