On 10/8/13 9:05 AM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
On 2013-10-07, at 5:58 PM, Ian Lepore <i...@freebsd.org> wrote:
I have not re-read those threads to see just how much of the discussion
involved rcs, I just spot-checked a few and confirmed my memory that it
showed up in some of the messages there.
I don't see any discussion as to why the code (CVS, in this case) *needs* to be
removed.
What, in the current builds of 10.x, is broken by leaving RCS/CVS in place?
And what, as 10.x moves forward towards a public release, will be broken by
leaving this code in the base?
I have less of a problem with replacing CVS with svnlite than I have
with removing RCS.
After all CVS's main reason for being in the system has switched to
svnlite.
And if you are using CVS yourself for other developement, you are
probbaly further
on with installing a system and are already installing other packages.
that's not the case with RCS. I know that people use it as part of
their install
procedure. Plus RCS is used within other tools. e.g. patch etc. It's
also a REALLY SMALL
utility, suitable for embedding into scripts etc. (the Unix way(TM)) I
consider it a base utility.
It does a simple operation on a file.
the discussion in arch was A YEAR AGO, was hidden under a differnet
title, and DID NOT RESULT
in a clear mandate to remove RCS.
Please put it back, and inthe mena while while we discuss it properly
this time, please revert the commit
(official request.. as described in the group rules).
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
