[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       freedesktop-xorg
Subject:    Re: [SCM TRANSITION] Re: Proposal: move Randr protocol and library
From:       Egbert Eich <eich () suse ! de>
Date:       2006-04-18 17:29:46
Message-ID: 17477.8714.625203.391882 () hermes ! suse ! de
[Download RAW message or body]

Diego Calleja writes:
 > El Tue, 18 Apr 2006 11:08:00 +0200,
 > Egbert Eich <eich@suse.de> escribi=F3:
 > =

 > > - To take advantage of a new and improved API a user may have to
 > >   upgrade numerous modules at once.
 > =

 > >From my own user perspective this doesn't matters that much. If you'r=
e
 > an user and you're trying new things you may need to download projects=

 > not hosted in fdo.org, ej: kernel snapshots when dealing with drm or a=

 > metacity version featuring some new feature. And from a user perspecti=
ve
 > using several SCMs is not an issue at all, since you just do "cvs upda=
te",
 > "git pull", "svn whatever" or switch branches if anything. Also, for a=
 =


Right. The difference is: you know what to use for which project and
it is hardly going to change (there are always exceptions).
In the present situation you have to keep track which xorg module has
been moved to GIT (so far we luckily have not seen any other SCM appear).=


 > user the code is read-only, so it's possible to use git -> cvs gateway=
s
 > if using several SCMs gets to be a problem.

Well, I agree that cvs gateways will make things more easy for users.
It will however only hide the underlying problem that we have been stuck
with CVS for so long because there was no chance for a consensus on
another solution.
Also please don't confuse fd.o with xorg: fd.o is desinged to accomodate
numerous different projects of different sizes and goals. It is only
natural to offer them a variety of different SCMs.

Cheers, =

	Egbert.

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]