Greetings Eitan, and thank you for your reply. > On 31 December 2012 15:40, Chris H <chris#@1command.com> wrote: >> Sigh... >> IM(NS)HO; SVN is an inferior RCS created so Windows users wouldn't feel >> left out. > > SVN has a number of features which makes development much easier. > > What did you find easier to accomplish with CVS than with SVN?
I'm going to resist the temptation to respond to this, out of respect to you, and the list -- lest it turn into a "flame fest" || "bikeshed". I understand that in the core development teams opinion, that the project became too unwieldy to continue maintaining it under CVS. That's their opinion, it's really their project, and I must respect _their_ opinion. That doesn't mean I like it -- or even agree. But, as I am the recipient of the fruits of their labor, who am I to disagree. But, none-the-less, opinions are like ass...ahem... backsides; everyone has one. :) There are arguments on both sides; some (perhaps you) feel SVN has/ provides more options, others (maybe myself) feel the same can be accomplished with CVS, and that migration only causes more initial (and unnecessary) overhead. I'll leave it at that. :) > >> Are there _any_ CVS servers/trunks/tree's left? If so, how _current_ are >> they? > > Ports and Source currently have CVS trees. > Ports has an explicit EoL on February 28th (2 months from today) > Source does not have an explicit EoL though it *is* considered deprecated. Thank you for providing this information, and my apologies, for not having better researched it myself. I'll make an effort to provide a permanent CVS repo for both src && ports. Thanks again, for taking the time to respond. --Chris > > > -- > Eitan Adler > _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
