[Pm-utils] POSIXification of pm-utils

[Dan Nicholson]

On Jan 30, 2008 3:34 AM, Stefan Seyfried <seife at suse.de> wrote:
> 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.

It buys us that Victor can go off and do a whole patch series to
POSIXify the whole system. And it got committed in small, logical
chunks. That would be a PITA (if even possible) on CVS.

--
Dan