On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 07:31:38PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > > > most popular open source revision control software. > > > > And among the most horrible ones. > > > Agreed. Why anyone would bother to reimplement an already existing free > tool is beyond me.
For several reasons, one being that the BSD folks use CVS extensively, it's part of how the ports system (and upgrades) work. > Not only that, but the stated purpose of OpenCVS, AIUI, is to be a > reimplementation of CVS under the BSD license. It makes no sense to try > and have both in Debian. I also agree with you that there are far > better alternatives. It does make sense, there are some features (like CVS syncing, which is useful for remote backups) that OpenCVS *might* (I haven't looked) implement straight out of the box and that the current CVS lacks. Also notice that some of our services (web pages, documentation project) use CVS and will do so for a long time. Having a CVS server available to switch to if a security issue in the current standard CVS server is found is something that would be useful to prevent downtime of those services if the debian admins have to switch them off. I say go for it. Javier
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
