[OpenAFS] Re: [OpenAFS-devel] An open letter from the OpenAFS Council of Elders

Troy Benjegerdes hozer@hozed.org
Sun, 11 May 2008 13:49:16 -0500

On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 11:46:00AM -0500, Todd T. Fries wrote:
> Penned by Troy Benjegerdes on 20080508 16:11.40, we have:
> [..]
> | Finally, from a developer point of view, I believe it is quite important
> | that the first project of the new foundation be to migrate from the 
> | existing CVS source code repository to a distributed open-source based
> | version control system. (This would mostly likely be either Git or
> | Mercrial.. once in either one of these formats, conversions any other
> | source control system of choice should be a lot easier)
> I suspect that cvs would be finely distributed if the /afs/openafs.org cell
> were still active.
> That being said, it is clear you have an agenda and preferances with code
> version control software.
> Perhaps rather than stating the conslusion, you could state the problem
> you are trying to solve?
> :-)

The problem I am trying to solve is allowing a occasional developer
(like me) who should NOT have commit access to CVS to be able to make
a local branch in a local repository, do some development, and then
easily be able to merge it into the latest upstream development, so that
I can make some changes, test them for awhile, then submit a patch
against the latest equivalent of CVSHEAD.

I would get most of this functionality if /afs/openafs.org were still
active, and then importing the CVS into mercurial. But that's still a
fundamentally different development model than what is possible with
distributed source control systems. 

If I had an easy, supported way to pull in the latest HEAD branch to my
local changes, it would be a lot easier for me to submit patches fixing
all the warnings that scroll by.

We don't need to re-invent a better source control system.. Bitkeeper, 
Git, darcs, monotone, mercurial have all already tried that. I would
just like openafs to pick one and go with it.