Contributed by jolan on from the finally-something-not-about-wth dept.
On NedBSD you can read an interview with OpenCVS developer Joris Vink. The interview is mostly about OpenCVS and it's future. Probably a interesting read for some of you.
(Comments are closed)
By Alan Post (65.19.19.54) aisa@cybermesa.com on http://livejournal.com/users/aisa0/
but the the apache licensing issue hit, which affected the apr library that subversion uses.
still, i'm not sure openbsd would have moved to subversion anyway. it doesn't quite jive with the relatively conservative "do it once, do it right" mindset.
i'm interested to see how opencvs develops, as i have enjoyed so far the amount of gpl code that has been removed from the tree. as the openbsd team usually integrates the work they do in projects like this with the base system, it will be interested to see that play out too.
authentication and validation are a good start, but there is always room for encryption/signing/hashing and general repository security too.
Comments
By phessler (208.201.244.164) on
Comments
By Alan Post (204.89.131.79) aisa@cybermesa.com on http://livejournal.com/users/aisa0/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-tech&m=111763854126700&w=2
but to summarize, too big, too slow, too insecure, way too much effort to transition a project the size of openbsd. plus we would have to add gpl code on top of that.
i don't see openbsd's experience as being all that unique. i was excited to hear about subversion and have it reach 1.0, but people i've spoken with have been less than enthusiastic about the result.
i find it unfortunate, because i think there was an opprotunity squandered here.
By Anonymous Coward (65.96.221.40) on
By Anonymous Coward (68.63.157.203) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (68.202.43.80) on
So you only need the libraries that provide the extra functionality you want. Makes sense to me.
Technically, SVN blows CVS away. It's really too bad about the licensing issues, and that removes the biggest open source competitor to CVS. Sad as it is, reimplementing CVS may be the most efficient solution to getting away from ancient, bit-rotted GNU implementation.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (63.119.50.193) on
It was true for me as of last week, and I was just trying to build a version that uses svnserve and fsfs, nothing fancy. SVN needs to continue relaxing the build dependencies.
Technically, SVN blows CVS away.
If you can build it, yes.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (68.202.43.80) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (68.63.157.203) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (82.236.141.3) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (68.63.157.203) on
By Anonymous Coward (200.212.63.10) on
> If you can build it, yes.
Dammit! if it's so then why the other people asking "why not openSVN" get's a "because no." answer?
By Anonymous Coward (194.7.26.2) on
By Anonymous Coward (193.209.143.130) on
Comments
By Alan Post (204.89.131.79) aisa@cybermesa.com on http://livejournal.com/users/aisa0/
i think technically one could "replace" the apr dependency. you would just check out from cvs right before the license switch and build from there. it wouldn't be a big deal.
but clearly there are other issues at work for accepting svn.
Comments
By Jean-Francois Brousseau (24.203.229.224) on
By Anonymous Coward (83.129.42.165) on
By Marc Espie (62.212.102.210) espie@openbsd.org on
It's not like it contains any information that isn't more or less publically available elsewhere...
Is anyone else peeved about interviews that more or less restate only what's already available by spending ten minutes on the web ?
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (212.113.164.105) on
By Anonymous Coward (66.44.0.135) on