[Pm-utils] POSIXification of pm-utils

[Michael Biebl]

2008/1/30, Stefan Seyfried <seife at suse.de>:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 08:50:10PM -0600, Victor Lowther wrote:
> > On Jan 13, 2008 4:27 PM, Richard Hughes <hughsient at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2008-01-13 at 13:07 -0600, Victor Lowther wrote:
> > > > Anyone else think that moving away from CVS for source control is a
> > > > good idea?  I am partial to Mercurial, but any of the modern
> > > > distributed source control systems would be lightyears better than
> > > > CVS.
> > >
> > > Moving to git is pretty easy, as fd.o hosts lots of git projects.
> > > Mercurial is harder as is not standard for fd.o.
> >
> > What would it take to make that happen?
>
> More important: what is it good for? pm-utils is a project with only
> a few files (until autocrappification came, which increased the number
> significantly, but still _very_ small). Moving to git or something else
> buys us not really anything, but it costs resources. And no, CVS was
> never the bottleneck in pm-utils development.
>
> I am strongly opposed to switching to anything else just because we can.

Hi Stefan,

come on, cvs is just horrible, you must admit that ;-) Besides,
switching was easy (as Richard proved it) and it already made it
possible to properly rename the hooks.

Michael

-- 
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?